PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By  Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered.

Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked--

Pensioner Incomes

Eric Joyce: If he will make a statement on the impact of his budget on the incomes of pensioners.

Gordon Brown: As a result of our personal tax and benefit changes in Budgets since 1997, pensioner households will be on average £600 a year better off. The basic pension has increased from April by £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 a week for couples. I can also confirm that we value the winter allowance, the Christmas bonus and free television licences for over-75s and that they will be retained. We will reject options that put at risk the basic pension.

Eric Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of pensioners in my constituency could only be grossly damaged by the Tories abysmal plans for pensions--

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is out of order.

Michael Portillo: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really believe that pensioners--people who have lived a very long time--are going to be fooled by a pension increase that he gives them just before a general election? Will not pensioners' enduring memory of this period of office be that they were given a miserly 75p by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Was that not only one of a series of major gaffes that the Chancellor has made, and is it not the case that he has started this election campaign with a series of gaffes on tax and public spending that have left his economic policy in disarray?

Gordon Brown: What the electors of this country remember is that the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury when VAT was put on fuel. Let us consider what has really been happening in the past few years. First, there was the winter allowance, which Conservative Members opposed. Secondly, there were free television licences for the elderly, but Conservative Members opposed them. They also wanted to abolish the Christmas bonus, and they do not want the pension credit.
	This morning, the shadow Chancellor said on television, "You are perfectly right that if people choose to take the option to move out of paying into the national insurance fund, there would not be as much money to pay current pensioners. So we have to fill the pump, and we can do that by a variety of ways, but for a start by selling gilt. Some of you will have spotted that if people are moving out of the national insurance fund there will be a hole in it. Yes, that is true."
	So now we know that not only do Conservative Members oppose the winter allowance, free television licences, the pension credit and the Christmas bonus, they are putting at risk the very basic state pension by their proposals to allow people to opt out of the basic pension and to privatise it. They would run up massive borrowing and debt. They are not competent on pensions, and they are not competent to run the economy.

Michael Portillo: No one will believe that nonsense from the Chancellor, but people will remember him as being completely insincere, completely ineffective and completely irresponsible. He is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was elected to deal with the welfare state, and he was the man who said that he would reform welfare. However, now that the Opposition have made a proposition to make future generations of pensioners much better off and remove the liability on future generations of taxpayers to pay taxes into the future, all he can do is try to make cheap political points.
	It is the Conservative party that has the courage to look to the future and the idealism to aspire that future generations of pensioners should be better off. He is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, by taxing the pension funds and by drawing ever more people into means-tested benefits, has ended up with 700,000 more people living in poverty.

Gordon Brown: It is very interesting that at the last Treasury Question Time of this Parliament, the shadow Chancellor cannot answer the question that has been put to him--[Interruption.] This morning, when the shadow Chancellor was asked on television how he would finance the basic pension in future years as a result of proposals that would allow thousands, perhaps millions, of people to opt out of the basic pension, his only answer was, "Well, we would have to discuss that with financiers. It might be bonds. It might be any system."
	After four years in opposition, Conservative Members come to the electorate with pension proposals for people to opt out of the national state pension, that would raid the national insurance fund and put pensions at risk for millions of pensioners who are now insecure as a result of those announcements by Conservative Members, yet they cannot tell us how they would fund their proposals.
	I will tell the House who the losers are: in Kensington and Chelsea, 12,000 pensioners are benefiting from the rise in the state pension; 13,000 are benefiting from the winter payment; and 6,000 are benefiting from free television licences. The Conservatives cannot be trusted on the economy; they cannot be trusted on tax; and now they cannot be trusted on the basic state pension.

Michael Portillo: The Chancellor has been peddling this nonsense all morning. Nobody believes him and he might as well give it up as it will not run. In just one respect, however, he was getting near the truth: the next time we meet across the Dispatch Box, I will be answering the questions. I will introduce a novelty to the House in respect of the past four years as I will answer the questions.
	In opposition, the Chancellor told us that he would end means testing for elderly people. He has wantonly increased the numbers of people who live in poverty and have to come cap in hand to the state in order to get a living wage and to pay the stealth taxes that he has imposed on them. Our alternative agenda is to allow pensioners to keep more of their money. We will never forget that it is the pensioners money. It is not the Government's money, the Chancellor's money or Gordon Brown's money. It is the people's money and we will allow people to keep more of their own money. We will increase by £2,000 the amount that pensioners can keep before they pay tax. Does not the Chancellor agree that that will be a winning policy with pensioners in this country?

Gordon Brown: What I agree on is that the Conservatives have put in their manifesto a proposal that millions of people could potentially opt out of the basic state pension. That would mean that the national insurance fund would not have the money that was necessary. The Conservative Centre for Policy Studies has calculated that to be £6 billion. The Actuary has calculated it as £6 billion within three years. The question that the Conservatives must now answer is how they will fund the national insurance fund contributions that are necessary for the basic state pension without cutting the basic state pension or running up massive borrowing. When asked this morning whether he could fund the basic state pension, all the shadow Chancellor could say was, "I will have to discuss this matter with financiers. It could be bonds. It might be any system." So Conservative Members, some of whom are making a valedictory appearance, will have to explain--and we will get down to the detail--in every constituency in the country how their opt-out plans can go ahead without raiding the national insurance fund, putting the basic pension at risk or running up massive debts and massive borrowing that would have to be paid for with higher interest rates. Although the shadow Chancellor refuses to answer the question today, and Conservative Members have now fallen silent, they will have to answer that question in each constituency up and down the country.

Ted Rowlands: May I suggest that my right hon. Friend ignores the rantings of the shadow Chancellor and spends his energy and effort on developing the pension credit? A fully developed earnings-related pension credit could be the future new deal for pensioners in constituencies such as mine.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I applaud the work that he has done during his parliamentary career in support of pensioners and employment in his constituency. He is absolutely right. The Conservatives opposed our plan for the new pension credit. Nor is it supported in their manifesto. They are against the winter allowance and free television licences; they are against the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit and now they propose putting the basic state pension at risk. If that is the Conservative pledge for pensioners, I doubt whether they will want to give it out to pensioners in any constituency.

John Redwood: Why should any pensioner trust this Chancellor when he has just stung elderly people in care homes with a new stealth VAT charge which will cost some of them more than the miserly 75p a week increase in the pension? Will he promise to abolish it? Will he support abolition and will he apologise to all the pensioners who will be stung yet again by his dreadful stealth charges?

Gordon Brown: That is completely incorrect. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have wished to acknowledge the authorship of the opt-out pension plans. After all, he and others wrote pamphlets in the 1980s saying that people should opt out of the basic state pension. He is now controlling the policy of his Front Benchers from the Back Benches, but he, too, will have to answer to his constituents. Why does he put the basic state pension, the winter allowance and the pensioner credit at risk? Each Conservative Member will have to answer those questions.

Public Investment

Rosie Winterton: What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of national income spent on public investment.

Jim Dobbin: What real terms increases he plans in investment in public services in each of the next three years.

Gordon Brown: When the Government came to power, public sector net investment was equal to 0.5 per cent. of national income. The plans set out in the 2000 spending review will increase net investment to 1.7 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2003-04--a doubling of net public investment. The Government, with our expenditure and investment in health, education, transport and the infrastructure, are turning around 20 years of underinvestment and modernising our public services.

Rosie Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, because increased investment in my constituency means a modernised accident and emergency department, new school buildings and work starting on major transport infrastructure projects. After years of Tory neglect, my constituents know that we need that investment to continue if we are to regenerate the area properly. Can my right hon. Friend give me that commitment and will he also give a high priority to housing investment, so that a hallmark of the next Government will be a decent home for all?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she does on behalf of her constituents. She is absolutely right, and additional investment in housing is included in the public expenditure review. Equally, 68 hospital projects are proceeding as a result of decisions made since 1997, 17,000 schools have been improved and we are recruiting more nurses, teachers, doctors and consultants. That is the way forward to rebuild the public services. The choice at the election will be between those who would invest in the public services and those who would cut investment. Conservative Members will have to go back to their constituencies and explain which hospitals and schools they would cut, which nurses they would make unemployed and which teachers they would make redundant.

Jim Dobbin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. The investment so far in the schools and hospitals that serve my constituency has brought definite improvements and is most welcome, but what is needed is a second Labour term in which a sustained radical programme of investment, in partnership with local government and other public bodies, would provide the quality services that the people of this country deserve and demand. Will he guarantee that?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I thank him for the work that he does. Education expenditure is rising by £4 billion a year and it will continue to rise by £4 billion a year under our spending plans. Equally, health service expenditure is rising by £5 billion a year. It is rising from £49 billion to £54 billion to £58 billion to £64 billion. When have the Conservatives ever been able to talk about measures of investment as good as those and on a sustainable basis? I know that the choice in the coming campaign will be between more investment under this party and cuts in investment under the Conservatives.

Edward Davey: Would the Chancellor advise voters to take more account of his plans for public spending or more account of his record? Will he for once admit that his record on public spending is as bad as that of the Conservatives, with average spending on health and education in this Parliament lower as a proportion of national income, not higher? Will he also admit that even at the end of the current spending review, Labour will spend less in 2003-04 as a proportion of national income than the Tories did in 15 out of those dreadful 18 years?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman asked me to talk about my record as well as my ambitions. Schools capital will have risen from the £600 million we inherited to £3.2 billion. Some 17,000 schools are benefiting from modernisation. In individual schools, an extra £3,200 brings the total amount paid to many primary school head teachers to £9,750. A typical secondary school head teacher can get up to £115,000 for the school.
	That is what we have done already, but in addition we plan to make available an extra £4 billion every year. I remind the hon. Gentleman, now that we are considering the past as well as the present and future, that the Government introduced a windfall tax on the utilities when we came to power. More than £1 billion of that money has gone to schools, but the Liberal Democrat party opposed the windfall tax. Will he say whether he still opposes it, as that is money that has gone to schools and education?

Peter Tapsell: Has the Chancellor noted that the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission have both publicly warned him that his public expenditure plans are unsustainable, that they are incompatible with the European stability pact to which he unwisely signed up, and that they must inevitably lead to both inflation and higher taxes?

Gordon Brown: First, the stability pact that the hon. Gentleman finds so unacceptable was signed not by me, but by the previous Conservative Government. Secondly, he puts himself into a difficult position given his history as an ally of the European Commission. I will tell him what I told the Commission, which is that we will stick to our spending plans. They are the right spending plans for this country, and mean more hospitals, schools, teachers and doctors. They are what the people of this country want. The choice is between investing more under a Labour Government and major cuts in investment under a Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman no doubt supports those cuts, but the Conservative party will have to explain them.

Margaret Moran: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for putting extra public investment into housing, which was desperately needed after the previous Conservative Government slashed billions of pounds off housing investment. Will he commit to putting further investment into housing over the next four years to ensure that the homeless have a hope of a home, and that council tenants can enjoy security and investment in their homes? Does he agree that the Government's investment pledges are in sharp contrast to what the Opposition propose? The previous Conservative Government slashed investment in housing, and in their dying days removed the safety net for the homeless. More recently, the Opposition have blocked the Homes Bill, thus preventing further hope for the homeless. They now plan to sell council homes over the heads of their tenants, who will have no choice in the matter.

Gordon Brown: As always, my hon. Friend puts her constituents case very well. We will continue our spending plans on housing, health and education, because they are right for her constituents and for the constituents of every Member of Parliament. People will look at the Conservative plans for spending cuts, but they will also see that huge additional spending commitments have been slipped into the Conservative manifesto. They include family scholarship schemes, progress centres outside schools, a cops-in-shops initiative, secure training centres--[Interruption.] Tory Members are now cheering public expenditure.
	The problem for Conservative Members is that they will have to explain why none of their figures add up. They have made tax promises that are way in excess of what the country can afford. They say that they will cut spending, but are unable to deliver. Then, to please different sections of the electorate, they make spending commitments that they cannot afford. There are so many people on the Conservative bandwagon that there is not enough room left for the band.

Married Couples Allowance

Tony Baldry: How many people have been affected by the abolition of the married couples allowance.

Dawn Primarolo: We are replacing the married couples allowance with the children's tax credit as part of a package of measures to focus resources on families with children. The children's tax credit is worth over twice as much as the married couples allowance and will benefit about 5 million families.

Tony Baldry: I declare an interest in the answer to this question, as I am getting married in 15 days. Does the Paymaster General accept that the abolition of the married couples allowance was in effect a stealth tax on marriage, and that about 5 million couples who benefited from the allowance do not benefit from the child tax credit system? Does she also agree that 1 million of those who could benefit from the child tax credit system do not, and will not, because they have not applied for it? As a result, 6 million families are worse off. Would not it be much more straightforward to reintroduce a married couples allowance that would benefit all families with children under 11 years of age? I am glad to say that that will not include me.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his marriage in 15 days' time. I am sure that he would accept that he is not in need of any financial encouragement to get married and does not believe that he would have benefited from the married couples allowance.
	The resources used for the married couples allowance were paid regardless of marital status. The allowance was paid to single parents, divorcees and couples. The Government have focused those resources on supporting families with children. Some 85 per cent. of those who are entitled to receive the £520 a year through the children's tax credit have applied for it. I am sure that after the hon. Gentleman's wedding, he will join the Government in campaigning to ensure that the remaining 15 per cent. receive that money as well.

Malcolm Chisholm: I served on several Finance Bills during the previous Parliament, in which the Conservatives cut and cut the married couples allowance without any compensating action for families. Is it not the case that the majority of people welcome the Government's focus on child poverty, and that they welcome not only the children's tax credit but the record increase in child benefit, the working families tax credit and child care tax credits, which have benefited families more than twice over, as my hon. Friend has said?

Dawn Primarolo: I understand that this will be my hon. Friend's last appearance in this House as he takes up his full duties in the Scottish Parliament. His campaigning for the Government to tackle child poverty is well known. He has made a substantial contribution to the development of the policies on the working families tax credit, the increase in child benefit and the increase in income support levels. Those policies have ensured that the Government have already lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty, and intend in the next Parliament to lift another 1 million children out of poverty.

Pensioners (Taxation)

John Bercow: What plans he has to review the taxation of pensioners.

Andrew Smith: As a result of our policies, seven out of 10 pensioners pay no tax or pay tax only at the 10p rate. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, following our personal tax and benefit changes, pensioner households will be £600 a year better off on average since 1997.

John Bercow: Given that the savings ratio has fallen to its lowest level since 1963, that millions of pensioners face billions of pounds worth of extra taxes, and that half of all pensioners are set to be on means-tested benefits by 2003, why does the right hon. Gentleman not increase the age-related personal allowance by £2,000 and take 1 million pensioners out of tax altogether? Those are Conservative policies to help people who work hard, who save hard, who try to be independent of the state and who believe in this country.

Andrew Smith: We are helping all pensioners with the increase in the basic state pension and the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, giving greatest help to the poorest pensioners. We introduced the winter allowance, which Conservative Members opposed and would abolish. We will not adopt their proposals because they would do nothing to help the majority of pensioners. The distribution effects show that more than 90 per cent. of the benefit goes to the richest third of pensioners in the country, confirming yet again that the Conservatives stand for the few whereas we stand for the many.

Tony Worthington: The pensioners in my constituency who face the greatest difficulties are those who were badly affected by the scandalous collapse of Chester Street Holdings and who suffer from asbestos-related diseases. As this is the last Treasury Question Time before the election, does my right hon. Friend have any news for those people?

Andrew Smith: I shall be setting out details in a written answer shortly, but I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that we have reached agreement with the insurance industry that the claims of Chester Street victims will be met by the industry using appropriate policyholder protection schemes. I am grateful for the flexibility shown by the insurance industry in helping to cut through what was an extremely complex legal situation. I congratulate my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends on their campaign, which has ended the uncertainty that was hanging over the victims and their families.

Nicholas Winterton: May I do something that is extremely relevant at Question Time? On this occasion, I thank the Minister for that reply to the question from his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I, too, have campaigned with Members on both sides of the House to obtain justice for those who are dying from asbestos- related diseases--in particular, my constituent, Mr. Donald McCreery, who has only a few months to live. The announcement, in the dying hours of this Parliament, will bring great happiness to him and his family. I thank the Minister and the Government for the work that they and Back Benchers have done to bring about justice. Surely, that is what the House is about.

Andrew Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks. As he says, there was an all-party commitment to resolve the matter. I am only too pleased that, as he says, in the dying hours of this Parliament we have been able to achieve that security and justice for people suffering from terrible diseases, who, with their families, would otherwise have been left in unendurable anxiety. I am pleased that they can look forward to the compensation to which they are entitled.

Anne Campbell: The 13,240 pensioners in my constituency are extremely grateful for the extra income that they have received under the Labour Government after 18 very hard Tory years. Will my right hon. Friend give wide publicity to his plans for the pensioners tax credit, which will reward those pensioners who have been thrifty and saved hard all their lives?

Andrew Smith: Yes, my hon. Friend can look forward to extensive publicity promoting the benefits of the pensioners tax credit during the coming weeks and, thereafter, along with the other extra help that we have given pensioners, which is ensuring real increases in their living standards and real investment in the services on which they depend.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister recognise that pensioners feel worse off under Labour? They resent the indignities of the means test, and they want to decide for themselves how their pension is invested. In the circumstances, will he support our policy of cutting tax on pensioners, of cutting tax on hard-earned savings and of reforming the annuities rule? In short, is not the best advice that he could give pensioners for the next election: vote Conservative?

Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman was cranking up the spending commitments like nothing on earth. However, the truth is that the Conservatives cannot pay for their proposals because they cannot identify the savings on which they claim those proposals depend. Their proposals would leave a black hole in the national insurance fund. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out, the shadow Chancellor--when challenged this morning about where he would find the money--could say only that he would talk to financiers, that it might be bonds or that it might be any other system. What it certainly would be is borrowing, which would destabilise the economy, push up interest rates, cut real living standards for everybody and hit pensioners worst of all.

David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment today that the winter fuel allowance and free television licence for those aged 75 and over will remain tax-free? Can he explain why, before the Government took office, not a single penny was given to pensioners for heating, whereas under the present Government such assistance was given from the beginning?

Andrew Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend and thank him for the work that he did on the campaign on television licences. The answer to his question is yes, we can guarantee that those will be free of tax and, yes, it is true that when the Conservative party was in government it did nothing to help pensioners in those ways. That summarises clearly the difference between the parties and the choice facing the people in the general election. We are standing up for pensioners' interests, keeping our promises and delivering rising living standards and better services, but all that would be at risk under the Conservatives.

Economic and Monetary Union

Owen Paterson: When he expects that his five economic tests for British participation in EMU will be fulfilled.

Gordon Brown: The Government's position on the five economic tests for the euro was set out in a 1997 statement to the House. The Government have said that the assessment will be made early in the next Parliament, so that British business is prepared for the introduction of euro notes and coins in 2002 in the euro area. I am today in consultation with business, publishing additional case studies showing how British businesses across a range of sectors have prepared for the introduction of the euro, thus helping British business to compete effectively in the single market, whether we are in or out of the euro.

Owen Paterson: Last week, the Chancellor got into the most terrible huff when the European Commission criticised his conduct of the economy. We all know from the Gould memo and from indiscretions on television that the Prime Minister wants to bundle us into the euro, against the wishes of the British people. As that will reduce the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom to that of office boy for the European Commission, will he now go through each of the five tests and give his interpretation of where we stand today?

Gordon Brown: The Government's position is as set out on previous occasions. While we see the benefits in principle of the single currency, we shall subject it to five economic tests, which will be rigorously made early in the next Parliament. If we were to recommend that we join the single currency, we would report to Parliament, and then the people of this country would have the final say.
	The difference between our two parties is that we are prepared to say that we support the single currency in principle, but will subject it to tests. The Conservative party cannot tell us whether it supports it in principle or is against it in principle. Indeed, some of those in the Conservative party support it in principle and some are against in principle. During the election campaign, they will have to make up their mind.

Denzil Davies: When my right hon. Friend comes to consider the five economic tests, particularly the question of whether the British economy is converging with that of the euro area, will he take into account the effect of enlargement on the economy of the euro area, and specifically the possible effect of enlargement on the value of the single currency?

Gordon Brown: All matters that are relevant will be taken into account in making the assessment, and we shall consider the effects on investment, employment and financial services. We shall consider whether we have the flexibility and we shall consider whether there is sustainable convergence. Those are the economic tests for Britain.
	What the country will not support is a Conservative party that appears to want to rule out a single currency on grounds of dogma and is not prepared to examine what is in the national economic interest. I believe that, at the end of the day, people will want this decision to be taken on the basis of the national economic interest. By refusing even to support preparations by business, the Conservative party is not only the anti-European party in this country but the anti-business party.

Christopher Gill: In advocating the single currency, will the Chancellor make sure to remind the British people that every time that we have been on fixed exchange rates, unemployment has increased astronomically? Will he also tell the British public that the choice of rate at which we would join the single currency is not left to this country to decide, because under article 109 of the treaty it has to be decided in conjunction with other countries? In other words, we cannot pick a rate to suit this country and the economy of this country.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman's problem is that while he appears to be subjecting the single currency to the tests of employment and everything else, he has ruled out the single currency as a matter of dogma. His position is not to support it if the economic tests are met but to oppose it under all circumstances.
	The Conservative party will have to make up its mind. The shadow Chancellor told Welsh Conservatives on one occasion that his policy was to keep our options open on EMU. He also said that a single currency would mean giving up the government of the UK. The Conservative party must make up its mind in this campaign. Is it against a single currency in principle, and therefore for ever, or against it only for one Parliament?

Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one reason why he is in a position to tell the Commission and anybody else, including the International Monetary Fund, to get stuffed is that we now have the most successful economy in all my 31 years as a Member of Parliament? When the election is fought, one thing will be certain: we shall not need any lectures from people who were experts in building deficits. This Government have managed not only to wipe out the debt left by the Tories, but to create a successful economy, which will provide more money for the health service, more money for schools and more money for the welfare state. I look forward in the next four or five years to more redistribution of wealth from the rich, who are represented by the Tories, to the many, who are represented on the Labour Benches.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and thank him for his campaigning, particularly on behalf of pensioners.
	Any Conservative party claims to economic competence have been undermined not only by what it did in government, but, today, by a manifesto that is unaffordable and not properly costed. When it comes to the campaign, the deputy Director General of the CBI has said that the Tory party's more eurosceptic view is not one that most CBI members would feel comfortable with, and that it is not in our commercial interest to have a eurosceptic Government. He also said that the CBI was once considered the corporate arm of the Tory party, but that most businesses would take their hat off to this Government for getting Britain's message across better. In other words, the Conservative party is not just the anti-euro party but, indeed, the anti-business party.

Howard Flight: Given the Chancellor's objections to and embarrassment at receiving orders from Brussels to cut his overspending plans, why does he continue with the silly pretence that a Labour Government's decision to join the euro would be based on objective economic criteria? The country well knows that the issue is a fundamental constitutional one, not least whether Britain should retain the ability to manage its own economy.

Gordon Brown: That really sums it up. I asked whether the Conservatives are against the single currency on principle or owing to the national economic interest. The hon. Gentleman has now proved that he is against the European Union altogether. It is hardly surprising that he had to apologise for calling for a renegotiation of our membership of the European Union. At this election, as I have seen from the Conservative party's manifesto issued this morning, it is against not only a single currency and helping business prepare for its introduction, but the treaty of Nice and single majority voting--and the hon. Gentleman is against the EU altogether. It is no wonder that businesses oppose the Conservative party.

Community Sports Clubs

Brian White: When he will introduce VAT relief for community sports clubs.

Andy Reed: What estimate he has made of the benefit to community and amateur sports clubs of his Budget proposals for tax relief.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government announced in the 2001 Budget their intention to consult on possible support through the tax system for community amateur sports clubs, which we recognise play a positive role in promoting health and cohesion in their communities. We intend over coming months to consult key organisations from the sports and voluntary sector, and to draw up a detailed proposal, which will be published for final consultation this year before the Government take it forward.

Brian White: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, but will she take into account during the consultation the fact that many clubs have had to take up the slack as a result of the Tories flogging off school playing fields, and have had to spend more on providing sports facilities for young people?

Dawn Primarolo: The answer is yes. That issue will be taken into account, because we recognise the valuable contribution that such organisations make.

Andy Reed: I am delighted that the Government have taken up my ten-minute Bill and I hope that, as soon as possible, I shall be able to see it proceed through its final stages in the next Parliament.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for sports clubs to benefit from the relief because they offer young people the opportunity to participate? The issue is not just about sport; it is about health, education and crime. The proposal is a prime example of joined-up thinking. It will ensure that people benefit from Government policy and shows the important role that sport plays.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ten-minute Bill and on his ability to influence the Government and to represent his constituents so well in the House--long may that continue. He will know that the Treasury and Customs and Excise are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for precisely the reasons that he identified. Unfortunately, this is a complicated area of the tax system because of the various structures of sports clubs. However, we intend to take the measure forward and I hope that, when he sees the final proposals, he will be encouraged to continue to press the Government on such matters.

Graham Brady: Does the Paymaster General not understand that hundreds of thousands of pensioners will take a dim view if the Government extend relief for VAT to community sports clubs at the same time as they impose a new stealth tax of VAT on pensioners living in care homes? The Chancellor is so ashamed of that stealth tax that he would not reply to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked about it.

Dawn Primarolo: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman seems to be declaring that the Conservative party will oppose the Government when we introduce any reliefs for community and amateur sports clubs. On his allegation about VAT changes with regard to pensioners, I point out that there are no VAT changes--and I hope that he heard that. There will be no change in the proposals that are currently operational with regard to these services.

Bob Russell: Although the Paymaster General's announcement is to be welcomed, does she agree that there is still a long way to go before the Government put back into sport and community organisations the large amount of tax that they take from them?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government have a fine record in supporting sports and community activities. The review that was carried out on the taxation of charities showed our commitment to supporting voluntary and charitable organisations. Clearly, the review of reliefs for amateur sports and community clubs adds to the contribution. He was quite wrong in his assertion.

Employment (Budget Measures)

Ernie Ross: What assessment he has made of the impact of his Budget measures on employment; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Smith: Thanks to the tough choices and the platform of economic stability that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budgets have put in place, we have the lowest unemployment for a quarter of a century and 1 million more people in jobs.

Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend accept that people in Scotland particularly welcome the successive Budgets introduced under our Government? Because of those Budgets, 31,500 people have found work through the new deal, 120,000 have benefited from the minimum wage and the working families tax credit is helping 108,000 families to make work pay. Does he agree that the Government's economic strategy goes hand in hand with our social policy agenda, which is tackling poverty? Does he also agree that, while jobs are good for individuals and the country, having a job is also the best way out of poverty?

Andrew Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is right at the heart of the Government's purpose to ally the economic conditions for growth and job generation with the opportunities and the help that people need to take advantage of those chances. We extend a hand up to those in the weakest position.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in chairing the all-party poverty group and on the energetic and close support that he has given the new deal from its inception. Throughout the United Kingdom, the new deal has helped more than 290,000 young people off benefits and into jobs and more than 66,000 of the long-term unemployed have been helped to move from welfare to work. The promises that we made at the last general election have been kept, and we shall build on them in the future.

Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister accept that since the Budget thousands of people have lost their jobs as a consequence of foot and mouth hitting both agriculture-related services and, in particular, tourism? In that context, will the Government consider--even at this late stage of a Parliament--extending an interest-free loan system to help those firms that are in danger of going out of business, and introducing a grant system to help to relaunch businesses that might otherwise find that difficult to do?

Andrew Smith: We are very mindful of the acute difficulties that are being caused by the impact of foot and mouth disease, especially in rural communities. Help is being provided by the rural taskforce and other Government measures, such as the extra resources that we are giving to the small firms loan guarantee scheme and the extension of business relief. Moreover, we are deferring national insurance, income tax and value added tax payments, which gives tens of millions of pounds of help to hard-pressed businesses. As a result of consultations with the taskforce and others, the Government will continue closely to monitor the situation and consider the evidence to determine where further help is needed. The best thing that we can do is to get the footpaths and parks open--where it is proper and safe to do so--and the tourists back into our rural communities.

Derek Foster: Will my right hon. Friend accept that all Labour Members celebrate the fact that we have achieved the lowest unemployment figures for 25 years? May I also welcome the Chancellor's commitment to achieving full employment in every region? Will his concept of full employment include bringing back into the labour market disabled people, lone parents and people over 55?

Andrew Smith: Again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to successful welfare-to-work policies, not only in his constituency, but across the country, and on the distinguished contribution that he makes in chairing the Employment Sub-Committee. Our commitment to full employment is about extending opportunities to disabled people, lone parents and others who have been cut out in the past. That is why we have the disabled persons tax credit, the new deal for disabled people and the new deal for lone parents. Each measure helps thousands of people to move from dependency to greater independence as part of the provision of opportunities for all, for which the Labour party and the Government stand.

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his reply to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was pitifully inadequate? Does he not realise that there is great deprivation in rural areas as a consequence of foot and mouth disease? The measly measures that the Government have offered to try to meet the dire problem are absolutely inadequate. Will he address the issue, from his position of urban ignorance, and seek to do something about it?

Andrew Smith: That was an unworthy remark from the hon. Gentleman. We have been energetic in introducing help where help is needed. I have received letters of appreciation for the help that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have given in deferring tax obligations. We have also extended extra help through the small firms loan guarantee scheme, and provided another £24 million just last week through the regional development agencies. In addition, the rural taskforce will continue its work during the general election, in consultation with all interested and affected parties, to ensure that we get our rural communities back to normal and to their former levels of prosperity and economic activity, to which we should all be committed. Those communities can draw scant comfort or help from the Conservatives, who want to cut public expenditure even when their Back Benchers say that they want more of it.

John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that £6 billion pays for 30,000 nurses and 75,000 doctors, and provides minimum income guarantee payments for 2 million of our poorest pensioners? If he found a black hole in his budget, would he have the gall to explain to those people exactly what that meant? Would he be confident that he would get away with his life, given such wonky arithmetic?

Andrew Smith: It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has left the Chamber already. Perhaps he has left to speak to financiers to learn how he will plug the black hole in his funding. My hon. Friend is right: the Conservative party's prospectus threatens jobs, public services, living standards and investments. The electorate will not forgive Conservatives for putting forward such incompetent plans. Conservatives cannot show how they would be paid for, and they would put at risk economic stability and the social justice that the Government are providing.

Debt Management Office

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the work of the Debt Management Office.

Andrew Smith: The Debt Management Office supports the Government's policies of minimising debt financing costs over the long term, taking account of risk and managing the cash needs of the Exchequer in the most cost-effective way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for that answer. The management of the Debt Management Office is a vital part of managing the economy. Now that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has identified a massive gap of £5 billion a year by 2004, will the Labour party cut its disastrously unsustainable expenditure plans, will it disastrously increase taxation or will it unsustainably increase debt? To fill the gap, should the British people mind the gap and vote Conservative at the election?

Andrew Smith: That was an extraordinary question for the hon. Gentleman to ask. In the year before the last general election, the Conservatives ran up borrowing of £28 billion. In the year before the impending election, we have a net repayment of £15 billion. The DMO is operating within a very different environment, in which the Government have sound public finances and sound money, as opposed to the spendthrift millstone of debt that the Conservatives put round our necks, and would do so again if they had the chance.
	As for the performance of the DMO, the hon. Gentleman would have done well to read the Select Committee report that was published in May 2000, which stated:
	"We were pleased to note that several witnesses who have regular contacts with the DMO, particularly in relation to debt management, praised the agency's performance and transparency."
	There is a better financial situation that is being better managed with Labour.

Dale Campbell-Savours: Are not the general public entitled to one more statistic? How many thousands of millions of pounds of Government debt that we inherited from the previous Tory Government have the Labour Government paid off since 1997?

Andrew Smith: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his distinguished service and contribution to the House--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]--which he will notice is applauded on both sides of the Chamber. I thank him also for the principled, energetic, good-natured, friendly and supportive way in which he goes about his work, which was reflected in his question. The answer is that we are reducing debt from the 44 per cent. of gross domestic product under the Conservative Government to 31 per cent., and a sustainable 30 per cent. for the years ahead.
	Those are not merely statistics. The numbers reflect the money that is taken from working people's pockets. It was taken in the past to pay for the boom-and-bust instability of a Conservative Government, who ran up debts because they could not manage the economy effectively. In the coming weeks, our case will be built on the tough decisions that we have taken and the platform of stability that we have put in place. We can invest and grow, and generate further jobs for the future. All that would be at risk with the Conservatives.

Poor Families (Tax)

Nick St Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the tax burden on poorer families.

Stephen Timms: By October 2001, as a result of the personal tax and benefit measures introduced over the Parliament, families with children in the least well-off fifth of the population will, on average, be £1,700 a year better off in real terms.

Nick St Aubyn: According to the Government's own figures, since they came to office the poorest fifth of households have had their tax burden increased by 12 per cent. Do the Government recognise that running a car is a necessity for many of even the poorest families, particularly in rural areas? They have introduced a regressive tax--there has been a massive increase in car taxation. Will the Minister join the Conservative party in cutting tax on petrol by 28p a gallon?

Stephen Timms: No, less well-off families are much better off, as independent research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows. Of course, the data to which the hon. Gentleman referred include only about a quarter of a year's worth of working families tax credit data and do not include subsequent increases in income support child credits and other improvements. He needs to explain to his constituents the fact that our measures will have taken 1.2 million children out of poverty during the course of this Parliament. There have been huge improvements, particularly for the least well-off families.

Points of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I hope that you enjoy the Dissolution, as I suspect that there will not be a candidate fighting against you. I was wondering whether the Health Secretary has said that he will come and make a statement about the future of the Victoria hospital in Lichfield, which faces closure; or, failing that, whether the Home Secretary has decided to come along and make a statement about the fact that we have lost 240 or more patrol police officers in Staffordshire since 1997; or, failing that, whether there has been a statement from other Secretaries of State, including the Chancellor--

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman. The answer is no in every case.

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether an opportunity can be found today or tomorrow for the Paymaster General to return to the House to correct a misleading impression that she may have given inadvertently during Treasury questions. When I asked about the Government's proposal to impose VAT on service charges in care homes and sheltered accommodation--a matter raised earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)--she claimed that there was no such proposal. In fact, Customs and Excise propose to change the interpretation of Government rules, the effect of which will be to impose a new stealth tax on pensioners. At least the Chancellor was too ashamed to answer my right hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Speaker: Let me answer. What the hon. Gentleman should do is put his case in writing to the hon. Lady. That is the best way to do it.

Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am still waiting for answers to written questions that I tabled some time ago. I am waiting for two answers to questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I tabled on 20 April, and I am waiting for one answer to a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that I tabled on 6 April. We are now in the dying hours of this Parliament. What action can you take, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that I get responses to those questions before Dissolution on Monday?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put his problem on the record and I am sure that the Ministers will note what he has said.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of colleagues are in a similar position to my hon. Friend. Would you be kind enough, to contact Government Departments and ask for all ministerial replies to be given before Dissolution? That is something that you could do on behalf of Back Benchers, that would be appreciated by Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions die when we come to Dissolution. However, I will encourage Ministers to answer parliamentary questions tabled by Back Benchers. I will do that, and I thank the hon. Gentlemen for raising the matter.

Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If possible, will you extend that help? As you may know, there have been many complaints from both sides of the House about the great slowness in dealing with parliamentary correspondence, some Departments being much worse than others. Is it within your remit, to direct from the Chair that you expect Members of Parliament to receive, before Parliament is dissolved or shortly thereafter, the backlog of replies that are due on behalf of many of our constituents?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a constituency, just as he does. Constituents write to me and I write to Ministers, and there are times when I am frustrated by the lack of replies and the time that it takes them to reply. I take on board what he says, and I hope that Ministers take note.

Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your replies to the points of order have been extremely helpful. May I take the matter one stage further? You rightly pointed out that Departments can no longer reply to questions once the House has dissolved, but that does not mean that Departments of State cannot deal with questions by way of correspondence to let hon. Members have a reply, albeit in a different way. Could you ensure that Departments of State reply by letter to questions that cannot be dealt with before the Dissolution?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that, but correspondence can be answered after Dissolution. There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman writing and saying, "Please reply to my question in writing. I should be obliged if the Minister would do that." However, there is nothing that I can do about that.

Peter Pike: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not somewhat strange that Conservative Members want a different situation from that which pertained in 1983, 1987, 1992 and 1997? Your answers have been extremely helpful, but we did not get such co-operation from Ministers at the time of those elections.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in the House a long time. Many of the Ministers during the period to which he refers were very good at replying to correspondence. I appreciated the replies that some of those Ministers gave to a Back Bencher like myself in those days.

Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the House becomes noisy during exchanges at Question Time, many of us rely on the amplification equipment to hear what is said. I wonder whether, in the period between now and the election, the amplification equipment on the Government side could be checked. During questions to the Chancellor, I distinctly heard requests being made for him to deal with questions about whether taxes would rise to sustain his spending plans. However, the Chancellor did not seem to hear that question and no reply was given.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we will hear the reply after the election.

Stephen Day: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Health notified you that he intends to come to the House in the last few hours of this Parliament to make a statement about heart transplant services in south Manchester? The matter has been outstanding for some time, and people are worried because a well-respected unit in south Manchester could be closed. The delay is wrong. An election is upon us and the people of south Manchester ought to know the Government's intentions. Have you had such a request, sir?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Foot and mouth has not gone away. This is the first week since the crisis began when the Minister of Agriculture has not come to the Chamber. There are strong reports that cases are being underestimated. We all have difficult constituency problems with licensing and movement of stock. First, have you received any notice that there has been a change of mind and that the Minister intends to make a statement to the House? Secondly, a lobby yesterday reported that the tourism industry had lost £12 billion so far. Is there any sign that the Minister for the Environment has changed his mind and proposes to make a statement about the taskforce? We have had numerous announcements, but constituents are writing and asking for detail. Finally, has the Prime Minister notified you that as the catastrophe has cost the British nation £20 billion, he intends to come to the House to announce the establishment of a full, independent inquiry under the impartial chairmanship of a judge?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no communication from Ministers.

John Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your helpful replies to earlier points of order. Further to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), should I take it that you think that the Minister should reply if my hon. Friend accepts your very good advice? Pensioners need to know whether VAT is to be levied on their warden services, and it would be good to clear that up soon.

Mr. Speaker: That matter is up to the Minister.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not really think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has a point of order.

John Bercow: Oh, I have.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall call the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) first.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am still encountering serious problems in relation to foot and mouth, which are brought to my attention by constituents almost daily. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will maintain all lines of communication with election candidates, so that they may put to the Ministry any serious problems that they find and be assured that prompt action will be taken? For example, will the hotline be maintained for candidates' use?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the matter, but it is up to the Minister to decide whether he contacts candidates. We must be careful about that. I understand his difficulty and the very serious problems in rural areas, and I am sure that the Minister will take note of them.

Stephen O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the biggest concerns is that many cattle will be turned out to pasture during the next couple of weeks. There is grave anxiety in my constituency, which is very rural and situated in the dairy farming area of this country, that the foot and mouth epidemic from which we have so grievously suffered might be caused to upsurge by the turning out of cattle. If that happens, candidates of all parties will need the answers that they seek from MAFF and must be able to give authoritative, reliable and, above all, responsible information to all those who have a deep anxiety about the matter and who need answers. Can you do anything to assist?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Minister will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

John Bercow: rose--

Mr. Speaker: I must take a point of order from the other side of the House.

John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The shadow Chancellor was specifically asked during Treasury questions about the £6 billion hole in his pension package. He showed a great discourtesy to the House by leaving the Chamber halfway through questions, presumably to talk to the financiers about how to overcome the problem. Do you have power to call him back to the House to apologise for his discourtesy and to allow us to get answers from him on that very important point before the general election?

Mr. Speaker: That question should not have been put to the Chancellor, as he has no responsibilities on matters that concern the Opposition Front Bench in relation to the Exchequer or finance.

John Bercow: rose--

Mr. Speaker: The best has been saved until last.

John Bercow: I never doubted that, Mr. Speaker, as your impartiality is, of course, absolutely legendary. I could not understand why my intentions could conceivably be in doubt. May I ask you, on what I think is a genuine point of order, to confirm that it is incumbent upon all hon. Members, including Ministers, to address the House? In that context, is not it somewhat disturbing that the Chancellor, while not answering questions, yet again did not address the House, but kept looking at the Labour Benches? May I put it to you that his failure to look us in the eye runs the very worrying risk of ensuring that he will be regarded as in some way shifty, disingenuous or even untrustworthy?

Mr. Speaker: I saw nothing out of order, but I must, of course, concentrate on the hon. Gentleman all the time, because he keeps talking. That sometimes distracts me, but when I was looking at the Chancellor and other Ministers, I saw nothing out of order.

Health and Social Care (Programme)(No. 3)

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Health and Social Care Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 10th January and 14th February:

Lords Amendments

1. (1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order--
	Nos. 6 to 17, 60 to 66, 1 to 5, 18 to 59 and 67 to 87.

Subsequent stages

2. (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.--[Mr. Allen.]

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Health and Social Care Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Before Clause 12

Lords amendment: No. 6
	Insert the following new Clause--
	"Reform of Community Health Councils
	(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the reform of Community Health Councils established for districts in England under section 20 of the 1977 Act.
	(2) The regulations shall provide for--
	(a) renaming Community Health Councils as Patients' Councils (referred to in this section as "Councils");
	(b) the information which local National Health Service bodies must provide to Councils;
	(c) the funding of Councils and the provision of premises and other facilities by the Secretary of State;
	(d) the membership of Councils.
	(3) The functions of a Council are--
	(a) to establish sub-committees for each National Health Service trust and Primary Care Trust in the district of the Council, to be known as Patients' Forums (referred to in this section as "Forums");
	(b) to facilitate the co-ordination by Forums of their activities;
	(c) to make reports and submit recommendations to Health Authorities, local authorities and their committees, National Health Service trusts, Primary Care Trusts, the national patients' body for England and to the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations;
	(d) to carry out such arrangements as may be made with the Council under section 19A of the 1977 Act (independent advocacy services);
	(e) to appoint, for each Forum within its district, one member as a non-executive director to the board of the trust to which the Forum relates;
	(f) to appoint a representative, having such functions as may be prescribed, to attend meetings of each relevant Health Authority;
	(g) to arrange for functions of Forums to be performed under joint arrangements between Councils, where such arrangements are appropriate to meet the needs of their communities;
	(h) to receive and respond to disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c. 23) where such disclosures reveal matters of concern for patients in the health service or for the wider community;
	(i) to refer issues of concern to patients to Health Authorities, local authorities and such national quality assurance bodies as the regulations may prescribe and to the Secretary of State;
	(j) such other functions as the regulations may prescribe.
	(4) The functions of a Forum are to--
	(a) monitor and review the operation of services provided by, or under arrangements made by, the trust to which it relates;
	(b) obtain the views of patients, carers and the wider community about those services and report on those views to the Council and to the trust;
	(c) having regard to the views obtained in accordance with paragraph (b), provide advice and make reports and recommendations about matters relating to those services to the Council, the relevant Health Authority, and the trust;
	(d) make available to patients and their carers advice and information about those services;
	(e) carry out such functions in relation to primary care services as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
	(f) in prescribed circumstances, to perform any prescribed function of the trust with respect to the provision of a service affording assistance to patients and their families and carers;
	(g) carry out such other functions as may be prescribed.
	(5) Regulations shall provide for the membership of a Forum, which shall comprise--
	(a) as to at least a quarter of its membership, members or representatives of voluntary organisations whose members or client groups have an interest in the health service;
	(b) as to at least a quarter of its membership, patients;
	(c) as to at least a quarter of its membership, carers;
	(d) such other persons as may be prescribed.
	(6) References in subsection (4) to "services" are references to--
	(a) services provided as part of the health service (within the meaning of the 1977 Act) in England,
	(b) services provided in England in pursuance of section 31 arrangements in relation to the exercise of health-related functions of a local authority, and
	(c) services provided elsewhere (and not part of the health service in England) in pursuance of section 31 arrangements with a local authority in England.
	(7) In this section--
	(a) "relevant Health Authority" in subsection (4)(c) in relation to a Forum for a Primary Care Trust, means the Health Authority whose area is, or includes, the area for which the trust is established;
	(b) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
	(c) "section 31 arrangements" means arrangements under regulations under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities);
	(d) "carer", in relation to a patient, means a person who provides care for the patient, but who is not employed to do so by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment;
	(e) "the health service" has the same meaning as in the 1977 Act;
	(f) "patient" includes (as well as a patient within the meaning of that Act) a person who receives services provided in pursuance of section 31 arrangements in relation to the exercise of health-related functions of a local authority."

John Denham: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 and consequential amendments Nos. 1 to 7 thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 15 and Government motions to disagree thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 68; Lords amendments Nos. 82 and 83 and Government motions to disagree thereto.

John Denham: In setting the scene for the amendments, it is important to stress that this is a major Bill. It puts in place many of the measures and powers that are needed to modernise the NHS and to implement the NHS plan, which was launched last July with widespread support from the NHS, its staff, professional organisations and patients groups. The plan underpins the unprecedented investment in the NHS that this Government are making, but which the Conservative party would put under threat.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to speak. I gather that the Bill is the flagship Bill of the Government in their dying days. Is there any particular reason why the Secretary of State is not here to present the Bill and speak to the amendments?

John Denham: The hon. Lady knows that I have handled the great bulk of the stages of the Bill, and I am doing so today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking part in a visit which in principle has been planned for many months.
	For the first time in the history of the NHS, nursing care for the elderly will become free in nursing homes from October this year. Just in the past few days, the Conservative party has again made clear its preference for private insurance as the answer to long-term care. The Bill will protect patients and be fairer to GPs by improving the regulation of GPs and other primary care professionals. It will extend prescribing rights. It will strengthen joint working between the NHS and social services by allowing care trusts to be established. It will protect the essential work of cancer registries and other vital parts of the NHS by protecting the information flows that it needs. [Interruption.] As we approach the closing stages of the Bill none of those must be put in jeopardy. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister knows that we are talking not about the general terms of the Bill, but about Lords amendments to it. He should speak to them.

John Denham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to point out that because the Bill is so important we must not put its provisions in jeopardy at this stage in its progress through Parliament. The Lords amendments deal with two substantive issues: the reform of patient representation and patient information. This group of amendments deals with patient representation.
	In all the challenges we face in modernising the NHS, the need to make the NHS patient-centred is one of the most fundamental. In the past 25 years too little progress has been made in that area. No matter how good each individual episode of clinical care is, too often patients feel that they have to make their way round the system instead of the system being built around their needs. They have to wait for an appointment that is inconvenient instead of being able to book one. They return time and again for different tests instead of having all the tests done on one day. Their passage from one part of the system to another, perhaps from the health service to social care, is not smooth and seamless as it should be. Too often simple problems, complaints and misunderstandings are not dealt with quickly, some then becoming major problems.
	We are already taking action to tackle those issues, but we know and patients know that change will be faster, more effective and more lasting if patients and carers have a voice at the heart of every part of the NHS.
	In the NHS plan we set out proposals for a radical change to the system of patient representation. In each trust and primary care trust a patient advocacy and liaison service will be able to tackle emerging problems there and then. A practical answer--

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the Minister to tell us whether he is agreeing or disagreeing with the Lords amendment and, indeed, what he is talking about? We have one hour only.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is in order at the moment.

Patrick McLoughlin: Only just.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is drawing a fine line.

John Denham: I have sought to set the context. The Lords amendments set out proposals and amended proposals for a system of patient representation and empowerment. I hope that it will be possible to set out the Government's intentions in this Bill in trying to reform the system of patient representation, how the Lords amendments would affect that and the reason for the position that we take on the Lords amendments. I am very much in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that that approach will be acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: In my experience amendments tend to be narrow and it is best to keep to the amendment before the House.

John Denham: We set out radical reforms to the system of patient representation in the NHS plan. As the Bill progressed, the system was incorporated in many amendments. The Bill provided for patients forums, and we said that we wished to co-ordinate their work locally. We established a group to consider the representation of patients through a national patients body. It recommended that the body should be statutory, and such a provision was included in the Bill in the House of Lords. Government amendments and those tabled by others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), led to a radical and powerful Bill for patient representation. However, the amendments that were made in another place wreck the Government's approach, to which the House of Commons had made amendments.
	The key amendment is technically and legally unworkable, and it would not provide the structural change based on independent patients forums or the important shift towards the direct representation of patients and carers that lie at the heart of the Government's proposals. The part of the Bill that we are considering is controversial, and I believe that, before the Lords amendments, the measure was a significant improvement on the original. It reflected much of the discussion that took place inside and outside Parliament. Many people, including many in community health councils, will be disappointed that the provisions will be withdrawn.
	At this stage of a Parliament, progress on Bills depends on the rapid agreement of both Houses. Several Bills have already fallen because such agreement was unattainable. The most disgraceful example is the Tobacco Advertising Bill, which has fallen because of Conservative party--

Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it pertinent for the Minister to mention a different Bill when we have only one hour to debate the measure?

Mr. Speaker: Regardless of the time available, all hon. Members, including Ministers, must keep to the amendment that we are considering. It is a narrow amendment.

John Denham: I hoped to draw attention to the fact that other Bills had suffered the same fate as the part of the measure that we are considering. We made significant efforts to find an agreed way forward in the light of the Lords amendments. However, given the time constraints imposed by an impending general election, it is clear that the Bill would be jeopardised unless we removed the clauses that related to patient representation.
	We are determined to empower patients more. However, we are also determined to lift the burden of nursing costs from elderly people and their families as soon as possible; indeed, from October. We shall give up the clauses because we are not prepared to put at risk free nursing care for the elderly. We are determined to fulfil our commitment to pensioners.
	The amendments that we have tabled, alongside the Lords amendments, will remove the necessary clauses from the Bill. We agree with Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which remove the clauses on patients forums and patients councils. We disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 4 to remove any link between independent advocacy and patients councils. Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17, with which we agree, ensure that CHCs will continue. We must therefore disagree with Lords amendment No. 15, and thus remove the national patients body. We regret its loss and believe that the proposed wider role and membership, and the opportunity to include voluntary organisations that represent patients, would be a considerable step forward. However, we cannot have two national statutory bodies that both seek to represent patients and the public. We must therefore withdraw the proposals for the new body.
	We must reconsider how to pick up the proposals from the feasibility study, that we established on national patient representation. It was carried out for the Department by a consortium of leading patients' organisations. We do not wish to lose sight of the vision that it set out in its report.
	We oppose Lords amendment No. 6, which seeks to transform CHCs into patients councils and reduce patients forums to mere sub-committees of CHCs. As I said earlier, that does not offer the basis of a realistic or workable way forward. The clause is technically deficient. If it were left on the statute book, it would lead to future arrangements for patient representation being decided in the courts rather than in the House. Consequential to that position and the removal of patients forums and councils are our amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 82 and 83, which remove clauses 14, 15 and 16, and further technical changes. The Government also disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, which would have amended the clauses relating to patients councils and forums.
	It might be helpful if I summarise the effect of the Government's proposals on the relevant legislation and policy. Although the effect of the amendments would be to leave the legislation governing community health councils as it stands, the Bill will still introduce significant changes. Overview and scrutiny committees of democratically elected councils will scrutinise the NHS, a change that has been supported in both Houses and was unaffected and unchallenged by the Lords amendments. The change has broad support and we will want to ensure that it is implemented. Among other things, overview and scrutiny committees will be given the role of referring local service change proposals to the Secretary of State and the independent reconfiguration committee when the committee does not think the proposals are in the interests of the local population.
	The Secretary of State will still have the responsibility introduced in this place to ensure the provision of an independent patient advocacy service, which also will be widely welcomed. The first patient advocacy and liaison services are now being established in trusts across the country, often involving former CHC staff.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently set out our plans to have far fewer, but more strategic, health authorities. The move to 30 strategic health authorities has been widely welcomed.

Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister be asked to clarify to which Lords amendments those specific points relate?

Mr. Speaker: We must allow the Minister to express himself as he wishes to express himself.

John Denham: It might be useful to the House and for the benefit of Conservative Members--I have no intention of talking out this debate--if I set out as clearly as possible the legal and policy position that would pertain if the House were to follow the advice that I am giving on the Lords amendments that we wish to accept, the Lords amendments with which we disagree, and the Government's own amendments. I am briefly setting out that scenario.
	I have made it clear--perhaps I need to repeat the points--that, although the legal position governing CHCs would remain as it is, there would be consequential changes to the Bill. Overview and scrutiny committees would take on the role that we have set out for them, and the Secretary of State will have a responsibility to provide independent patient advocacy services.
	The move to 30 strategic health authorities is one of the matters that will govern change in the future. The change has been widely welcomed as part of our commitment to devolving power and resources to the front line. It would be ludicrous to assume that patient representation can be championed effectively by ever-more remote committees. What is needed is patient representation within every NHS organisation. We shall still seek to establish patients forums, which are an essential tool if patients are to challenge and change each part of the NHS. Although we would need further legislation to give them the statutory independence that we would like them to have, non-statutory forums can be established in the interim.
	Change is therefore inevitable. We will have to return to those matters after the election and further legislation may be necessary. However, as we have said from the beginning, any change must be as seamless as is practical and make the best and most appropriate use of the skills and expertise that are already within the system.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 66. If the House agrees to either of those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Liam Fox: I shall be relatively brief. None of us expected quite such a rapid victory for common sense as we have been seeing in the Chamber today. I share my hon. Friends' disappointment that the Secretary of State could not attend this debate and eat humble pie himself. It seems that he finds that diet unpalatable, and that the Prime Minister's three-week humility does not apply to all his Cabinet Ministers.
	The Minister was scrambling round for a description of the Government's position as a consequence of their position on the Lords amendments, but I shall try to help him. Climbdown, U-turn and humiliation are all reasonable descriptions of his position today.
	As for the Minister's unmitigated drivel about the need to protect free nursing care, which is Conservative party policy, it really was a very poor excuse indeed. However, I am sure that he will have the gratitude of at least some of his Back Benchers for abandoning one of the most ridiculous and disastrous policies to emerge from the Department of Health in the past four years. We shall not divide the House, as we agree with the position that the Minister has taken on the Lords amendments. The effect of what the Government are saying today will be simply to return us to the status quo, which is where we wanted to be all along.
	There would have been no need to have ridiculous and lengthy debates on the subject only to arrive back where we started, if only Ministers had been willing to listen to representations that were made the length and breadth of the country, by those of all party political persuasions and none, to the effect that this was a poor decision that was not in the interest of patients and only in the interests of those who wanted a lapdog rather than a watchdog for patients.
	The Lords amendments will return us to the position that community health councils are currently in, acting as a one-stop shop for patients. The community health councils that were created by a Conservative Government in 1973 offer free labour to the NHS worth £8 million a year. Each year, community health councils assist about 30,000 people, yet they were kept in the dark about the Government's plans.
	When Ministers were asked about consultation they did not accept that ACHCEW--the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales--or the CHCs themselves had any legitimate expectation of consultation on the proposal that CHCs should be abolished through primary legislation to be introduced in Parliament in due course. That arrogance was one of the main reasons why their Lordships were unwilling to accept the Government's plans. In addition, apparently the Government had no idea of what would happen to CHC staff or the records that were kept by CHC. All that made a poor situation overwhelmingly unsatisfactory. The overwhelming view on both sides of the House, which is held by everyone except those on the Government Front Bench, is that there should now be a reform rather than abolition.
	Government Back Benchers who might have taken some short-term comfort from the Minister's words may not be so happy when they read the Department of Health press release that says that, should the Government be re-elected, they propose to continue with the abolition of community health councils. It will therefore be increasingly clear up and down the country that those who have been helped by community health councils, those who assist community health councils and those who work for community health councils will know that a vote for the Conservatives will keep the community health councils and a vote for Labour will abolish them.

David Hinchliffe: I very much welcome the fact that the Government are going back to the drawing board on this issue. That will come as no surprise to anyone who has heard my previous comments on the Bill. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill
	"contains many positive measures, but also some that need to be given further thought . . . Of particular concern are the proposals in clauses 7 to 14, regarding scrutiny and complaints . . . I feel that there has not been adequate public consultation and discussion . . . I get the distinct impression that the proposals regarding CHCs and scrutiny were something of an afterthought."--[Official Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1104-105.]
	As the Minister is well aware, my main concerns related to the fragmentation of the system that was being proposed to replace CHCs--the lack of independence and the lack of clear proposals for independent patient advocacy. I welcome the fact that the amendments on advocacy reflecting the concerns of the Select Committee on Health have been retained. We all accept that that is a major step forward.
	On Report, I moved the new clauses in respect of patients councils in order to create an umbrella body that would draw together the various forums, reflecting the role that CHCs have undertaken over many years and the advocacy service to which the Government have agreed. I said:
	"I make no bones about the fact that I am proposing a framework that needs to be examined in more detail."
	I recognised that a lot more work needed to be done and said:
	"We must consider continuity between any change and the new system. I genuinely hope that some of those who have served so well on CHCs will make a major contribution within the new system."--[Official Report, 14 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 395-96.]
	That was what I felt needed to be done in the House of Lords. I am conscious that the deliberations in the other place were constructive, because the official Opposition changed their position between the Commons and the Lords. The Conservatives in the Lords actually backed the idea of patient councils as a reform that could improve the position of patients. I recognise that there were differences over the detail, including the issue of the relationship between patients councils and forums.
	The Lords amendment does not reflect the importance of the patients forums, which will be front-line bodies that will play an important role. I understand the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Minister on that point and I also understand the difficulties involved in the continuity question. I welcome the Government's willingness to make further proposals in that area.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that we were back to the status quo, but he is wrong. He nodded a moment ago when I mentioned independent advocacy, which is a major step forward, and I am sure that he--and the Liberal Democrats, given their previous position--will support that reform.

Liam Fox: If I may clarify the position, I meant that we are back to the status quo for the CHCs, and we welcome the additional proposals. Will the hon. Gentleman return the favour by telling us whether he will campaign in the general election on his party's ticket to abolish CHCs?

David Hinchliffe: I made my position clear on Second Reading, when I said that the CHCs' functions need to be radically reformed, and the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. I was a member of my local CHC for many years, and its members know that I believe that we need to modernise that scrutiny function and reflect the marked change in the whole direction of the NHS that has taken place, rightly, under this Government.
	I would welcome the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Minister on whether the advocacy arrangements proposed in the Bill will ensure, as the Health Committee suggested, that the advocacy function can be placed temporarily with CHCs, so that patients have a clear, independent voice. I would also welcome his comments on where the advocacy function will be placed, as the Bill stands, and on the current position of CHC members, who are hard-working volunteers and need some assurances about their future role.
	I am also concerned about the position of the staff of CHCs and of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. Serious questions have been raised about their their job security and future role. Those people have done a good job in many respects and I would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments. I also wish to praise the work of Donna Covey at ACHCEW; she has attempted to work closely with the Government and other parties, in difficult circumstances, to reach some solution that will reflect the concerns of those who want a modernised system.
	Patients also need some assurances about the interim period. Will they still have access to CHCs carrying out the functions that they now perform? Can my right hon. Friend confirm my hope that the advocacy function will be available, once the Bill takes effect, within CHCs to assist patients in a way that many of them are not now assisted?

Nick Harvey: The Government's proposals started out as a curate's egg and ended up as a dog's breakfast. We have taken the view from the beginning that what the Government proposed had three essential flaws. The first was a lack of independence in the arrangements. The second was a lack of cohesion--we were concerned that the system would be so fragmented--and the third was that no national body was proposed that would provide a voice for patients at national level.
	During the progress of the Bill, some of those issues have been addressed in part. For example, the patients forums were taken away from the trusts, which originally were to fund and establish them. The provisions for independent advocacy also increased the independence of the new arrangements. The Government conceded in the other place that there should be a national body to represent patients at national level.
	Just as the Bill was leaving this House, an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) proposed the creation of patients councils. That would have gone some way towards addressing the point about cohesion. We believe that patients councils could have become very worthwhile bodies, especially given the bigger health authority footprint that is now being talked about, and that they should have been responsible for the independent advocacy service.
	The House of Lords, when it considered the amendment, wanted to put patients councils on a firmer footing. Their Lordships wanted the councils to be clearly marked out as successor bodies to the community health councils. It is regrettable that the Government did not feel able to accept that, but they seem to have concluded that it would be better to go back to a blank sheet; and we do not intend to obstruct them in that.
	We will have to return to this matter, both during the election campaign and after it. If we are going to start from a blank sheet of paper, I hope very much that any decision made by the House about future arrangements for patient representation will provide for a set-up that is strong, independent, coherent, properly funded and represented by a national body.
	The Government will feel some embarrassment that they have had to withdraw their proposal at this stage of the Bill's progress. The proposal was always flawed, but I have every hope that, after the election, we will arrive at an arrangement that is in the best interests of patients.

Stephen O'Brien: There are times when one's faith in the democratic process is confirmed, even in this Parliament under this Government. I raised the matter of the widespread opposition in the country to the Government's peremptory proposal to abolish CHCs at one Prime Minister's Question Time last year. I received a dusty answer and was told that consultation was being held and that a report on that consultation would be made to the House. Only three days later, the Prime Minister sent me a grovelling letter signed, as seems to be his habit, "Yours ever, Tony". In it, he admitted that a decision had been made and that the Government were not going to consult on the abolition of CHCs after all.
	The abolition proposal was set out in the small print of the middle chapters of last summer's NHS plan. I am delighted that the Government's craven climbdown at this late hour means that the excellent Chester and Ellesmere Port and Cheshire Central CHCs will be able to continue their good work, under their respective chief officers Mr. Geoff Ryall-Harvey and Mrs. Jean French.
	Those chief officers have not been assisted by the Government's brutal and mindless approach to the welfare of CHC staff and volunteers. I talked to Mr. Ryall-Harvey this morning. I thought that today's debate might turn out as it has, but of course was not able to say as much. The irony is that Mr. Ryall-Harvey told me that he had just returned from an out-placement session that was held because it was believed that the Government were confident that they would succeed in getting the abolition proposal through the House.
	I am glad to say that the Government have failed, and that opposition to the proposal has emerged among hon. Members of all parties, including Labour Back-Bench Members, and in the other place. We have been deeply upset on behalf of patients, staff and NHS users at what amounted to an appalling attack on the independence of patients and on their confidence that they can discuss the difficult issues that arise when things go wrong. That is when people with grievous and worrying problems are at their most vulnerable and need people of independence and authority who can inspire confidence that solutions can be found.
	These issues were highlighted during an excellent debate in Westminster Hall. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, and his team for having championed the retention of CHCs so successfully. It is common ground across the House and among CHCs that they need updating and reform. However, all the good work that they have done does not need to be undermined by the Government's wish to abolish them, which has done untold damage. The wind-down, in anticipation of abolition, has caused grievous morale problems.
	It must be made clear that, despite this shoddy process, the Government's shabby conduct and a shameful policy, this is only a temporary reprieve. If a Labour Government are returned, they will again campaign for the abolition of CHCs, and it will cause their Back Benchers no end of difficulty. We, however, will be saying, in any campaign and challenge that is put to Conservative party candidates in the forthcoming election, that we will retain CHCs, reform them and commit ourselves to their independence.
	I am proud to have played a small part in the campaign to retain CHCs, and I am glad that the Government have given way at last on this terrible policy.

Peter Bottomley: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) for getting the Prime Minister, in effect, to mis-speak. In the follow-up letter, it was made clear that there had been no consultation before the Government's decision to abolish community health councils as legal entities.
	I think that the reaction of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, which joined in the campaign strongly after a slow start, was based on what my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury did and also on the actions of the Worthing district community health council. It wrote to the association asking what action it would take. Then we discovered that what the Government assumed to be a done deal across the country was not one, and that community health councils had been objecting strongly. [Interruption.] Some Government Back Benchers must have pager messages saying "smile" at this point, but it is no laughing matter. It matters a great deal to people with hospital appointment problems, those who have concerns or who want to draw Ministers into the reconfiguration of hospital services. If the Government said that they had a fragmented responsibility to the CHCs to bring general practitioner services into their field, that would make sense.
	I have in my hand a letter from one of my constituents, who is 71. His family doctor referred him to a specialist clinic. The letter he got back said:
	"You have been referred to . . . the Pain Management Unit at St. Thomas's Hospital. We are writing to confirm that you are now on our waiting list, and we hope to be able to offer you an appointment in 15 months' time." [Interruption.] The Government Whip may ask what this has to do with community health councils. CHCs would, rightly, ask how on earth that person was supposed to bear his pain for 15 months while the hospital decides whether it can offer him an appointment. That does not necessarily mean treatment. The Minister looks upset about this. He jolly well should be; so is my constituent.
	People are doing more and more at Worthing hospital, but it should be plain, even to a Health Minister, that more is being left undone than was the case four years ago. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is not so, in which case I refer him to his own answers, which show the proportion of people waiting for in-patient treatment for more than a year, how that figure compares with four years ago, and how it compares with the figure for the health authority covering the Prime Minister's constituency.
	It would be proper for the Worthing district community health council to take up the question of a 47-week delay in seeing a consultant in Worthing hospital. If the Government want to extend CHCs' powers to include the family practitioner service, the overload there is probably just as great. Regrettably, family doctors in Worthing, south of the railway line--which has probably the greatest concentration of those over 85 in the country--have closed their lists to new patients and will now take only those referred through the health authority. For that to happen, after four years of the Government's stewardship, is something that CHCs should take up.
	Ministers know that holding the election 12 months early has helped to save community health councils. They should drop the Labour party desire to abolish community health councils and seek all-party agreement to extend the CHC role to cover family doctor services. CHCs can thus help health workers--doctors, nurses and others; they are willing to take up complaints and, most of all, they ensure that there is a public, independent, knowledgeable and continuous voice to make plain that what is happening at present is unacceptable.
	Ministers seem to fear people saying that what is happening is unacceptable, but waiting 15 months or 47 weeks to see a consultant and the closing of GP lists are certainly not acceptable to me. I doubt that they are acceptable to Labour Members either. CHCs have a proper role to play in ensuring that the situation changes and changes fast. Do not abolish CHCs.

John Gunnell: I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). When we considered this matter in the Health Committee, we were convinced of the need for a less haphazard advocacy system that was genuinely independent. Advocates must be independent of the hospital trusts that employ them and which they investigate. We certainly need the advocacy system to be more widespread. The system must be strengthened by making it coherent and common to all trusts. It must be genuinely independent. I am glad that the Government have listened and that more acceptable proposals have been made.

David Hinchliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the points that I made in my speech. As this may be my hon. Friend's last contribution in the House, I feel it appropriate to pay tribute to him for his work on the Health Committee, and in representing his constituents in Morley and Rothwell and in local government over many years. He is still widely respected for his work as a member of West Yorkshire county council. I am sure that we all wish him well in his retirement.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Oliver Heald: I join in the tribute to the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) for his work on the Health Committee. As he will remember, he and I have jousted in Committees on several occasions. I, too, wish him well in his retirement.
	I am extremely pleased that there has been a reprieve for the East Herts and North Herts community health councils, both of which have a valuable function in my constituency. They check on cleanliness in hospitals, investigate food quality and, at their statutory meetings with the health authority, have been instrumental in teasing out some of our financial problems.
	My concerns about the proposals related to independence and continuity. The CHC representatives who carried out inspections of Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City and highlighted problems with cleaning contracts have a continuity of experience with that hospital. The representatives of the North Herts CHC who inspected Lister hospital, looking into diet and the quality of food preparation, also have that continuity of experience. They are independent; they say what they see.
	It may not be convenient for Governments to have such independent people telling them what is right or wrong with local health services. However, as a Member of Parliament, it is helpful to me to know that there is a truly independent sounding board, which has continuity. The statutory meeting of the East Herts CHC certainly brought out--through questioning and contributions from the health authority--some of the financial difficulties that had occurred during the past few months in East and North Hertfordshire. That process was extremely helpful.

John Denham: Can the hon. Gentleman identify a single way in which the patients forums or the patients councils, as we proposed them, would be less statutorily independent than CHCs?

Oliver Heald: One of the greatest achievements of the community health councils has been casualty watch. It is to have a national body--

John Denham: rose--

Oliver Heald: Let me finish the point. It is to have a national body, which will be able to co-ordinate these matters, and which will be independent and able to communicate fearlessly the picture for the country as a whole. Governments do not like that, but the public at large and Members of Parliament certainly appreciate it.

John Denham: Why would the national body as set out in the Bill have been in any way less able to do casualty watch than the CHCs are at the moment? We have made it clear that it could do so equally well.

Oliver Heald: We want something that is genuinely independent, and we want it--[Laughter.] The Minister laughs, but independence is important. We are used to a Government who constantly spin figures and change the basis of figures--a Government who are all about spin rather than reality. If it is independent--

Philip Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that the patients councils and patients forums as proposed in the Bill would be established by secondary legislation--regulations introduced by the Secretary of State--and would not be enshrined in primary legislation, as CHCs are?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend is right about that. All too often, we are asked to accept assurances. We know what the community health councils and the national body do at the moment. We are expected to give the Government carte blanche because they are nice people giving us assurances, but that is unacceptable. We want it in the law.
	I am grateful to have had the opportunity to make this short contribution to the debate.

Patrick Hall: I am very disappointed with the situation that we now face. People have put a great deal of work into trying to find answers to a multitude of questions, but those questions remain on the table and all the work will have to start again.
	A lot of work has been put in over the past 10 months to make sense of a set of proposals that, to start with, were fragmented and posed more questions than they answered. When the Bill left the House on Third Reading, it contained a much better set of proposals. The new structure for patient representation was not nearly as fragmented as it was when it was first suggested, thanks to the Government's acceptance of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), and thanks to a great deal of work that had been done outside this place, by civil servants and others, to which the Government paid attention. With patients councils forming the overview and the administrative cohesion that was missing from the initial set of proposals, we had a structure that would have worked and would have made sense locally.
	The statutory, independent patients forums would be very important for every part of the local health service. They would not perpetuate the traditional emphasis on hospitals--the acute sector--but would give equal importance to the primary care sector, and to community health services. Patients councils would have been well able to play the important role of fitting that structure together. They would also provide a means of disseminating and receiving information, locally, regionally and nationally, and a means of informing local authority scrutiny committees.
	We have not returned to where we started, but the situation is unsatisfactory and unresolved, and people will still have in mind questions that they will pose in the weeks and months ahead, to which the Government will need to return in future.
	Will the Minister give one assurance? Will he acknowledge that no system that deals with patient representation and patient empowerment will work unless it has the good will of all the people who are already involved in those areas? Most of them serve on CHCs and most are volunteers, but many work for other voluntary organisations, as my right hon. Friend will know. Their good will and work needs to be acknowledged. The Government could have begun the process in a better way with regard to those people. The process began 10 months ago and there has been constructive consultation since, but there will certainly have to be a great deal more of it to deal with these matters when the Government return to power.
	I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the views of those in the voluntary sector--voluntary members of CHCs as well as staff--will be taken on board, so that such people will be fully involved in returning to the drawing board to consider the new structure. We need the involvement of those people to make any new structure work.

Philip Hammond: We really should not be having this debate. If the Government had listened to what people had to say and genuinely consulted at the outset, as they pretended they had, they would have realised that the Bill's proposals were unacceptable. They are unacceptable to the Conservative Opposition, to all other parties in the House and, indeed, to the great majority of Labour Back Benchers. They are unacceptable to outside bodies representing patients and to most commentators on the subject. It is only the Government's arrogance that has resulted in their having to make such a humiliating climbdown at the 11th hour.
	The Minister is wrong to suggest--indeed, the Labour party was wrong to suggest in last night's press release--that the climbdown is somehow in order to save the principle of free nursing care. I believe that all parties in the House have expressed their support for the introduction of free nursing care.
	Clause 56 removes from local authorities the statutory duty to provide or procure free nursing care, and the power to do so. There is no reason why, if clause 56 had fallen and the Bill had not become law, the Government could not have introduced free nursing care by directing health authorities to pay for it--unless the Minister is suggesting that the country is littered with local authorities that would insist on paying for such care even when their health authorities were offering to do so and to provide it.
	I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, but I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions; he has come to the House supported by the usual invisible army, and I know that he would be disappointed if I did not do so. How has he reconciled the retention of community health councils with the creation of overview and scrutiny committees? There will be significant overlap of their functions and a potential for conflict between them.
	Will the Minister explain Government amendment No. 4, which proposes to leave out subsections (6) and (7) of proposed new section 19A, under clause 17, which deals with the introduction of independent advocacy services? Proposed new subsection (6) provides that, before making arrangements for independent advocacy services, the Secretary of State should consult the relevant patients council and any other persons "as he considers appropriate". Obviously, there will be no patients councils to consult, so it is entirely appropriate to remove that reference. However, why should the Secretary of State not consult
	"such other persons as he considers appropriate"?
	By removing the subsection, the Minister will be allowing the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for the provision of independent advocacy services without a requirement to consult anybody on doing so.
	Government amendment No. 7 addresses schedule 5. It is not clear why the House should be minded to agree to the removal of a definition of a patient advocacy and liaison service, and to giving the Secretary of State free rein to define such a service through any regulations and in any way he chooses. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on those two points, because they are not merely consequential amendments, but significant changes to the process that the Secretary of State will have to undertake.
	Throughout, the Government's case for abolishing the CHCs is that they want to introduce something that is much stronger and much more effective. Their problem has been that no one believes them. It is true that CHCs are a thorn in the side of Health Ministers. The Minister knows that and my right hon. and hon. Friends have told me the same thing. The function of CHCs is to be a thorn in the side of Health Ministers.
	One of the most common outputs of CHCs that Members receive is the excellent publication "Casualty Watch". Let us consider the Government's version of their motivation. The Secretary of State was sitting one morning in his office reading a copy of the Daily Mail with the headline, "The abandoned patients--Catalogue of shame as hospitals leave elderly waiting on trolleys". The article beneath it added:
	"A survey by Community Health Council workers across London revealed horrific examples of sick patients"
	and so on. We are asked to believe that the Secretary of State said to his advisers, "I have a great idea. Why don't we strengthen these bodies? Why don't we make them more independent and more effective so that they can produce more of this type of documentation and circulate it to the press and Opposition Members of Parliament?" That is a totally implausible scenario.

Clive Efford: Instead of waving about the publications of the CHCs, would the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Conservative Government cut the budget of CHC News, which kept the members of CHCs, like myself, informed of the issues that the CHCs were taking up with the Government? That measure made CHCs less effective.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman might remember that the previous Conservative Government created CHCs precisely to undertake a scrutiny function.
	The Government have got themselves into a position in which Labour candidates will go into the general election pledging to abolish CHCs. Those candidates will have to defend the indefensible position that the Government have adopted in wishing to destroy these independent watchdogs and voices for patients. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) said, the Government have created a dog's breakfast.
	We are delighted that CHCs have been reprieved by the Government's climbdown today, but we would much prefer to hear that the Government permanently accept the advice that they have received from both sides of the House and from all sections of opinion outside that the CHCs should be retained and reformed, Instead, I hear from the Minister that this is a measure of expediency and that a Labour Government, if re-elected, would move swiftly to abolish the CHCs and remove the independent voice that they provide for patients.

John Denham: When I outlined the Government's position, I was able to set out exactly what would happen as a consequence of the amendments. I shall not respond to the Conservative party's caricature of our position as I have set out the policy that we shall pursue in the weeks to come.
	The debate has been revealing because not a single Conservative Members has engaged with the fundamental challenge that we set out to tackle. The fact is that, despite much hard work and good will, 25 years on, we do not have a patient-centred NHS or the structures that mean that it has been organised around the needs of patients. Nothing other than that fact motivated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, me and other Ministers to introduce the proposals in the NHS plan. They remain our commitment.
	I do not criticise hon. Members who want to praise the work of their local community health council, but the debate revealed the extent to which the Conservatives have tried to caricature what the Government proposed. It simply is not true that we wanted less independent and less powerful bodies, that were not as able to speak up for patients or to carry out activities--such as those performed by Casualty Watch--as the CHCs. We wanted to achieve a system of patients councils, patients forums and a national body that, taken together, would have been stronger, more powerful and, indeed, more independent than today's arrangements. I believe that we could have achieved that and had greater consistency across the country because everyone accepts that services are patchy and inconsistent. The hon. Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) clearly had not attempted to read or understand the Bill before it went to the other place or after it was initially amended there.
	There is one reason--and only one--why the Government have reached this decision. Everyone knows that, at this stage of a Parliament, unless both Houses of Parliament agree on all aspects of a Bill, it will fall. In this case, the provisions for free nursing care would have fallen with it. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) really believes that this primary legislation is not needed, it is a little late for him to speak up now. He did not say that previously. We need primary legislation so that we have a secure statutory base for what we intend to do. We are not prepared to lose free nursing care because both Houses cannot agree on other aspects of the Bill. That is a fundamental principle and the right position to take.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister acknowledge that I raised that point in Committee?

John Denham: I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman was also wrong in Committee, but if he wants me to confirm that, then fine. Doing things by direction does not provide a satisfactorily--

Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister asked why I did not raise the matter before, and I told him that I had in Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair

John Denham: I apologise for not realising that the hon. Gentleman was wrong twice. I thought that he was wrong only once. For the record, however, I confirm that he was wrong twice.
	Let me stress that we are not prepared to lose free nursing care because the two Houses of Parliament fail to agree.
	I suspect that I will not have time to cover in detail all the issues raised. On the overview and scrutiny committees, we will need to consider in depth, after the election, the way in which their new powers will fit with the legal powers of CHCs. That is important. We will have to consider the best way of delivering advocacy services, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) referred. Given the support of the CHC staff association for the Bill a few weeks ago, I regret the fact that there might be some uncertainty about it. We will want to work with them in the weeks and months to come to ensure that their position is properly looked after.
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair pursuant to Order [this day]
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 15, 62, 73, 74, 82 and 83 disagreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry].
	Consequential amendments Nos. 1 to 9 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. John Denham, Maria Eagle, Mr. Philip Hammond, Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Peter Luff; Mr. John Denham to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee--[Mr. Jamieson.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain of Lord amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill (Programme)(No. 2)

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 29th January:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. (1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

2. (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.--[Mr. Touhig.]

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 25. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Offences leading to penalties on the spot

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Charles Clarke: It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate now that the Government do not intend to divide the House on any of the Lords amendments that we shall consider this afternoon, including Lords amendment No. 35 to clause 126, on which the Government were defeated in the other place yesterday. I shall briefly set out the reasons for that in relation to each group of amendments when we come to them.
	At this stage, I should like to pay tribute to the Opposition--both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in this House and the other place--because we have all sought to work co-operatively and constructively to achieve a situation in which the Bill can be dealt with as effectively as possible. That is reflected in the amendments before us.

Andrew Miller: The Bill has been subject to a new form of scrutiny under the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Obviously, given the time scale, there has not been time to debate the Committee's report. Given the comments of the Father of the House yesterday about Parliament needing greater powers of scrutiny, will my hon. Friend comment on the grilling that he and his officials were given by the Committee and, in particular, on whether that was a constructive approach? It would benefit the House to know that.

Charles Clarke: I am happy to comment on that briefly. I was the first Minister to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the implications of the legislation, and that was a substantive and critical process. The Committee's report was positive and constructive and opens up ways in which we can address human rights issues more effectively. Many fears have been expressed about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for many aspects of public life. So far, however, the courts' decisions on those questions, including the High Court's decisions on planning yesterday, indicate that the Act can improve and enhance the way in which we work without jeopardising the traditional way in which we have done things in this country. The work of the Joint Committee, to which my hon. Friend referred, is important in that regard, and I pay tribute to its report.
	The amendments will remove two offences from the list under clause 1 to which fixed penalty notices apply. That will mean that penalty notices cannot be issued for offences of criminal damage or offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Amendments were tabled in Committee by Lord Cope, Viscount Bridgeman and Baroness Buscombe. As a result of an extremely constructive debate in the other place and after careful consideration, we are content to omit both offences from the list of those for which penalty notices can be issued. That will allow time for further consideration of the practicalities of how the penalty notice scheme will operate in relation to such offences. The affirmative order procedure can then be used to put back in whatever is agreed.
	I acknowledge that, in Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised many concerns about high level criminal damage and that well-motivated amendments were tabled by his colleagues in the other place; they were trying to improve the law, not adopting a pettifogging or nitpicking approach.

Humfrey Malins: What is it about those two offences that distinguishes them from the others? Why has the Minister agreed to the removal of just those two from the list?

Charles Clarke: There was a different reason for removing each offence. In Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a series of arguments about criminal damage. He said that, with the higher level of criminal damage, there was a danger of the fixed penalty notice procedure being used to evade the full possibility of higher level criminal sanctions. I think that he would acknowledge that I made it clear that that was not our intention and that we were dealing only with offences that caused a lower level of criminal damage. However, there was the ambiguity to which he drew attention in Committee, as did his noble Friends in the other place. We therefore decided to remove the offence from the list.
	On the public order offence, it was argued in the other place and by the hon. Gentleman in Committee--he can speak for himself in this debate--that it was important to have a clear record of individuals who had been involved in such offences. Concern was expressed that without such a record, the fixed penalty notice procedure could undermine what the police sought to achieve more generally.
	We did not entirely accept that argument. We did not think that it had as much force as the criminal damage point that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, but we thought that it was not an insubstantial point. Because secondary legislation will allow us to revisit the matter, we were prepared to accept the amendments tabled in the other place. That was our reason for picking those two offences out of the list of eight--I think that that was the original number--offences under the fixed penalty notice procedure. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment tabled by the Lords.

Oliver Heald: May I say how pleased I am that the other place has agreed the two amendments? As the Minister said, the matters were discussed in Committee. The argument for omitting the two offences from the fixed penalty notice regime was based partly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on Second Reading, and partly on our analysis of fixed penalty notices.
	Fixed penalty notices should deal with the most minor offences of their type. They are not for more serious matters. As my hon. Friend pointed out on Second Reading, if a more serious offence of criminal damage was dealt with under this procedure, first, there would be a problem with compensation, which is payable only on conviction, and secondly, the procedure would not mark the event adequately. Serious offences of criminal damage are serious matters.
	We took the view that public order offences are serious and that the fixed penalty notice regime was not entirely suitable. As the Minister observed, and as I pointed out previously, it is important that we know who is committing public order offences and that we have a record so that if, for example, we want to identify those who are guilty of football hooliganism in order to implement the appropriate provisions, or if we want to deal with those who are conspicuous in their activities on May day, we know how many times those people have committed public order offences and broadly what they have done. That was the thinking behind the amendments. I am pleased that the Minister agrees that the Lords amendments should stand.
	There has not been an opportunity for members of the Committee to thank the staff, the police and the Chairman of the Committee. I shall say nothing further about the Committee stage. There is still a motion on the Order Paper, which I am glad will not be debated. However, it is right to put on record our thanks to the staff and all those who helped us in Committee, as we would have done if the Committee had ended in the normal way.

Simon Hughes: We support the amendments. The Government and colleagues will remember that our view was that the list of fixed penalty offences was far too long. To correct the Minister's recollection, there were 12 offences in the list that the Government wanted added. We thought that some of them were too serious to be the subject of fixed penalty notices, and some were not serious enough. We took the view that if the Government had been doing their work properly, they would have provided for other offences to be added, but allowed for separate consideration of those offences in due course, without pressure, rather than picking out of the consultation process such a motley group of offences.
	The amendments whittle down the group of offences from 12 to 10. To that extent, the Bill has been improved and brought nearer to what we sought to achieve. However, it is still not ideal and contains offences that are inappropriate for the application of fixed penalty notices. It is sad that we must now proceed by amending legislation in future to get the matter right, rather than by deciding it through the secondary statutory instrument procedure that is otherwise available to us.
	Neither the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) nor I engaged in the debate that we could have had a moment ago, as such discussion would have eaten into the time that is allowed us. However, I want to place on record one of the frustrations of the way in which the Bill has been considered--a frustration that does not apply only to amendments such as those before us. The process has ensured that the flagship Bill of this Session has been rushed through this House, pushed under pressure in the other place and then guillotined in its final stage. We all understand that matters are curtailed when the Dissolution of Parliament is announced and we make no complaint about that. However, it is entirely unsatisfactory to allow flagship legislation to be chopped for debate in the House of Commons, pressurised into less debate in the Lords and then chopped and curtailed again in this House. I regret that that process ensures that, although there are matters proper for debate, we will have the minimum time available--one hour--to debate them. The amendments improve the Bill, but in our view, they do not improve it enough. Of course, I expect that we will speak about some of its remaining defects later.

Humfrey Malins: As always, I declare an interest as a recorder of the Crown court and a deputy district judge.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I have been made a little happier, as the amendments remove two of the potentially more serious offences from the clause, so that we can see how it works. The problem with an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is that the top end of the scale is quite nasty and can be very serious.
	If a youngster tells a policemen to "something off"--the House will know what I could have said--his action can be used by the police as a section 5 offence. That happens a lot in London. I would be a little unhappy if such an offence were to get a ticket. There is sometimes a risk of moving into the criminal sphere matters that it does not encompass, and the large scale of section 5 means that it is right for the specified offence to be removed from the clause. Likewise, for the reasons so eloquently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, there is an argument for removing the criminal damage aspect of the clause.
	The Minister should note that the clause nevertheless contains two potentially troubling offences. First, it refers to
	"Using a public telecommunications system for sending a message known to be false in order to cause annoyance."
	I assume--and I should know--that that does not cover bomb hoax calls, which are dealt with by separate legislation and are a very serious matter.
	The sending of false messages by telephone can be nasty. I am trying to think of examples. Certainly, the act of knowingly giving a false alarm to a fire brigade can be serious. The inclusion of such offences in such a small provision is odd. It is hard to say whether it is over the top to suggest that such offences can be serious and ask whether they can be just as serious as, for example, the bottom end of the specified criminal damage offence or of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I know from my colleagues on the stipendiary bench that they sometimes treat wasting police time or giving false report as very serious. I appreciate that the Minister intends that those offences should be suitable for a ticket only when they are at the bottom end of the scale. However, the wide-ranging nature of the issue means that it will involve the exercise of a certain amount of discretion by people whom I hope will be trained or adequately qualified to exercise it.
	The Minister will know that what was then the metropolitan stipendiary bench was not consulted before the Bill was produced. That was extraordinary because 90 per cent. of all crime is tried in magistrates courts. The stipendiary bench, as it was, takes the lead in all crime in inner-city areas and, as he knows, is full of experts. It is too late to do anything about that now, but in future when he is consulting or discussing how the legislation is working I hope that he will not forget to consult that element of our judiciary.

Charles Clarke: First, I can give the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) a general assurance on future consultation of stipendiary magistrates. Secondly, I was remiss in not extending thanks to the people who served the Committee. I was unwilling to bring back to the House the memory of the disgraceful events at the end of the Committee, which brought Parliament, the Conservative party and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) into such disrepute. I am sure that the country will be aware of that during the coming general election campaign. It is absolutely right to pay tribute to all those who helped us in Committee: the Clerks, Doorkeepers, Hansard, my officials in the Home Office who were assiduous throughout the process, and all members of the Committee.
	I do not accept the criticisms about the lack of time to scrutinise this matter in the Chamber. We have discussed it on other occasions. On the substantive point made by the hon. Member for Woking, we are removing the two widest-ranging offences for the reasons that he gave. Each of the offences has some range and we shall have to see how the system works. I should perhaps remind the House that there is power to remove as well as to add offences to the table in clause 1 by subordinate legislation. I can give the commitment that he seeks: the Government will keep under close review all offences in the operation of this legislation. Subsequently, we will decide what further action we might take.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 17
	 — 
	Closure of certain licensed premises due to disorder or disturbance

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 9, line 12, after "of" insert "and related to".

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Charles Clarke: These amendments would require that any disorder, or likely disorder, in the vicinity of the licensed premises must also be related to the premises in question before a closure order could be made on the ground that it is necessary in the interests of public safety.
	This, again, was a matter that we debated at length in Committee. The various interests concerned have been assiduous in making their representations on the issue. The amendments were tabled by Lord Cope of Berkeley during the Committee stage in the other place. We took the view that they were unnecessary for reasons that I gave earlier. We accept the need for all the parties affected to be clear about the Bill and the case for making it absolutely clear that disorder or threat of disorder must relate to the premises in question before a closure order can be made.
	The other four amendments make consequential changes to give effect to this change wherever similar tests must be applied by the courts and the police, for example when the police are deciding whether to extend a closure order. I hope that the House will agree the amendments.

Oliver Heald: The amendments were tabled in Committee in this House and in the other place, and I am delighted that they appear on the amendment paper today.
	Those who keep public houses and licensed premises--the industry--accept that it may well be necessary to close rowdy premises at short notice. However, they were particularly concerned that that might happen when the likely disturbance or the disturbance occurring in the vicinity of the premises had nothing to do with their particular premises. A police officer might therefore believe that there would be trouble in an area and close the public house when its activities did not merit it.
	The scope of the original wording was too wide to catch the badly run houses that cause serious disorder problems and put public safety at risk. We therefore welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to accept the view of another place that the wording should be narrowed to relate the disorder that is in prospect, or that has occurred, to the premises.
	I believe that the Minister made a vow not to mention the Committee stage and it was therefore a pity that he broke it. I defend my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who did not act disgracefully. She took all the measures that were available to her to deal with circumstances in which democracy was at risk.

Simon Hughes: We welcome the amendments. The battle throughout our proceedings has been to restrict the powers that the Bill grants the authorities against the liberties of individuals and businesses. It was a perpetual theme of the Committee stage. A Labour Government, trying to be excessively authoritarian, had to justify themselves against all sorts of arguments. Some were made by Conservative Members, others by us and many by people outside the House. We tried to point out that the powers were simply unnecessary.
	I put my neck on the block on Third Reading, and made it clear that, if a general election had taken place on 3 May, various clauses would not have been passed. I can say with authority, after conferring with colleagues in another place, that although we would have tabled amendments such as those that we are discussing, other amendments, such as Government proposals to extend curfews and to hold samples of DNA from people who were shown to be innocent would not have been accepted. The House of Lords would not have allowed the Bill to proceed. The month's delay has meant more time for debate in another place, where the Government argued that their proposals had been tested and were able to win votes. Consequently, the Bill has been allowed to proceed in its current form.
	We were unable to win some of the big battles against a Government who have a majority in the House. They have a majority under our electoral system, but not in the country. We are therefore grateful for small victories. There was a danger of imposing closure orders on pubs for unrelated activities outside them. That is unacceptable. In a busy, built-up area such as the Old Kent road in my constituency, the police might take the view that some activities were causing disorder and intervene. If the amendments are accepted, closure orders can be imposed only if the prospective or actual disorder is "related to" the relevant pub. Pubs that keep good order will not be in trouble. That is progress. We wish that the Government had been more enlightened on other matters for which we would support a more liberal and less authoritarian regime.
	Lords amendment agreed to
	Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 agreed to

Clause 19
	 — 
	Closure Notices

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 17, line 3, after "being" insert ", or within the last 24 hours have been,"

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14.

Charles Clarke: The amendments clarify that the power in clause 19 to issue closure notices can be used against premises, which, to the satisfaction of the police or the local authority, have been used for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor at some time in the previous 24 hours.
	As currently drafted, the relevant subsections of clause 19 could be interpreted to mean that a closure notice could be issued only if the use of the premises for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor had continued until the notice was served. That restricted effect was not intended, especially as it would not cover cases where use did not continue when the police or the local authority wished to serve their notice, although it had occurred in the previous 24 hours and was more than likely to recur later.
	The purpose of clauses 19 to 28 is to allow action against specific premises, where there is continuing offending or where offending has occurred in the past 24 hours. The amendments therefore make technical changes, which confirm that action may be taken when illegal use has occurred in a previous period of 24 hours. I hope that they will be agreed.

Nick Hawkins: We agree that the amendments clarify the Bill helpfully. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I repeatedly expressed our anxiety in Committee that some clauses, including those that we are considering, had been too hastily drafted. The Minister will acknowledge that several concessions that the Government made in another place and that he is confirming today are a response to the anxieties that we and people in the licensed trade have repeatedly expressed.
	Many clauses have been drafted too quickly. We have used nearly half the time, which is too short, that has been allocated to consider the long list of amendments. That means that we are again rushing matters through with almost indecent haste. We shall consider matters that are even more significant later, and I therefore do not wish to detain the House for long.
	The Government have belatedly acknowledged that, as we suggested in Committee, the aspect that we are considering was not sufficiently clear. We are pleased that the Government have accepted, at this late stage, that the drafting needed improving, as we consistently said.

Simon Hughes: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but I want to make a further point. It is important that society clamps down on alcohol abuse, and abuse by those who are licensed to sell alcohol of the terms and conditions whereby they are permitted to do that. Alcohol is a major cause of crime. The Government acknowledge that; there is no disagreement between the parties about the matter.
	Drugs--alcohol is a drug--often cause serious, especially violent crime. It is therefore appropriate to do all that we can to ensure that those who lawfully buy and sell alcohol act within the law. I hope that we shall continue to be vigilant to ensure that alcohol abuse does not continue to the same extent, with the terrible consequences that society currently suffers.
	Lords amendment agreed to
	Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14 agreed to

After Clause 37

Lords amendment: No. 15, to insert the following new clause--Permitting use of controlled drugs on premises--
	For paragraph (d) of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38) (offence of knowingly permitting cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium to be smoked on premises) there shall be substituted--
	"(d) administering or using a controlled drug which is unlawfully in any person's possession at or immediately before the time when it is administered or used.""

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 39.

Charles Clarke: The amendment to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would facilitate police action against closed drug markets, such as crack houses. Under the 1971 Act, it is currently an offence for the occupier or manager of premises knowingly to allow illegal drugs to be produced or supplied on them. However, liability for the use of illegal drugs extends only to smoking cannabis or opium. That reflects the drug misuse patterns that prevailed when the Act was introduced. We believe that Lords amendment No. 15 will play an important part in updating the powers available to the police and the courts in tackling drug abuse, and it is supported by the police.
	As we argued both on Report and in Committee, we felt that the change was not necessary. However, the official Opposition did not accept that view either on the Floor of the House or in private discussions that I had with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). In the light of concerns about a lack of clarity in the legislation, we decided that it would be better to accept Lords amendment No. 15 than to have a rather arcane discussion about the legalisms involved in the particular circumstances. Consequently, both in the other place and in this place, we have accepted the amendment, which we hope will have the effects that have been widely advertised.

Nick Hawkins: I am very glad that the Minister expressed his concession as he did. The amendment is the result of a very long-running campaign by the official Opposition which has been led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and, in another place, by my noble Friend Lord Cope. My noble friends Baroness Buscombe and Baroness Hanham also have continued to press the Government on the issue.
	We knew all along, as the Minister has very fairly conceded today, that the police were desperate for an amendment to the 1971 Act that enabled them particularly to clamp down on crack houses. As my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe said:
	"These amendments represent the closing of a frustrating, glaring loophole in the law given the now sadly prevalent use of crack cocaine by illegal drug users."
	My noble Friend also mentioned the fact that, back on 23 January, Baroness Hanham had
	"laid down a challenge to the Government to crack down on crack houses."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2001; Vol. 624, c. 1759.]
	A moment ago, in our previous debate, I mentioned some important amendments that have to be made to the Bill, and Lords amendment No. 15 is one of the most important of them. All of us know, and police are particularly aware, that crack cocaine is one of the most dangerously addictive illegal drugs. Very sadly, crack houses have become increasingly prevalent in our society, especially in inner cities and town centres.
	The Opposition have been surprised that it has taken the Government so long to accept our arguments on this vital issue. Nevertheless, there is even greater joy in heaven over a sinner who repenteth. Even at the 59th minute of the 11th hour of this Parliament, the Government's acceptance of our view is welcome. We think that the amendment will add a strong weapon to the police's armoury in dealing with one of our society's most important scourges--illegal drugs, and particularly crack cocaine, which is one of the most dangerous.
	I therefore welcome the Government's concession, although I wish that they had made it a great deal earlier. Nevertheless, even at the last minute, it is greatly to be welcomed.

Simon Hughes: Liberal Democrat Members welcome Lords amendment No. 15. I have just one question for the Minister which I hope that he will be good enough to answer. It seems that the amendment would not only achieve its main purpose of making crack house activity illegal, but that it could change the law to legalise other activities that currently are illegal. Is that so? I ask the question simply because the offence was previously defined as
	"knowingly permitting cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium to be smoked on premises",
	and that definition is being changed to encompass different types of activity.

Charles Clarke: Reflecting on the question, as the hon. Gentleman asked it, and quickly taking advice from colleagues, I think that I can confirm that the amendment does not have the effect that he fears it might have.

Simon Hughes: It was a neutral question and did not express a view. I simply wanted to ensure that the Government's understanding was that the amendment will extend the remit of the 1971 Act without reducing the provision in other spheres. I appreciate that I asked the question without providing notice of it, and I would be grateful if the Minister would place on the record any advice that he might receive on it. It is important that we are clear on the issue.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 41
	 — 
	Police directions stopping the harassment etc. of a person in his home

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 2, line 22, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 22.

Charles Clarke: The origin of this group of amendments, which are essentially identical, was concerns expressed in Committee in the other place by the Opposition, who suggested that the person concerned should be described as a target rather than as a victim. We felt that the precedent for use of the word victim lay in its use in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Having given further consideration to how to try to meet the concerns expressed by the Opposition in the other place, we feel that the word resident is a better choice than either the word victim or the word target. We do not believe that the change would have an impact on the effect of the clause.
	We believe that the change will provide a higher level of objectivity in the terminology that is being used. Specifically, it will take account of the sensitivities of those who are subject to such harassment and may well not wish to be defined as victims because of the association of the word victims with particular circumstances. Consequently, we propose to replace the word victim with the word resident in this group of amendments.

Oliver Heald: We are content with Lords amendment No. 16. I should say that the concerns expressed in the House on Second Reading about events at Huntingdon Life Sciences have been dealt with in the Bill. Amendments to the Bill allow the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to be tightened up and enable directors to register their addresses confidentially. Other provisions deal with the practice of besetting people's homes. Amendment No. 16 deals with one of those matters.
	It is good that both sides of the House have agreed on the need to tackle the issue and that it has been possible to make progress. However, the official Opposition cannot take the credit for this group of amendments, as they address a Liberal Democrat issue that was raised first, in Committee, by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and later, in the other place, by Lord Phillips. They should take the credit for the amendments, with which we are happy.

Andrew Miller: I should like simply to press my hon. Friend the Minister on the use of language in the clause. Definitions are sometimes extremely difficult. I suppose that it is pretty obvious to individuals when we are victims, although it may not always be entirely obvious to the courts. Is my hon. Friend happy that the full spirit of the original clause is encompassed by use of the word resident? Does the word encompass only permanent residents, or does it include, for example, those who are temporarily resident in a dwelling or legitimately resident in an hotel room? Are all those potential circumstances covered to his satisfaction in the Bill?

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman might be assisted by considering the points that my noble Friend Lord Cope made--on 1 May 2001, at column 1782 of the House of Lords Official Report--when he asked about using the word resident, victim, target or person in the clause. The official Opposition in the other place suggested using the word person. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point. We want to ensure that the clause in its final form is workable, so that those who are doing that very important scientific work are properly protected.

Andrew Miller: I am speaking in the debate because of the type of English that the hon. Gentleman has just used. Although I am used to dealing with scientific terms, in the Bill we are addressing much more complex definitional issues. I am merely seeking to determine whether my hon. Friend the Minister is satisfied that the intention of the clause will be the same as when it contained the word victim, and that it will operate similarly in all circumstances in which a person is a victim in a dwelling. It would be helpful to clarify the issue.

Simon Hughes: I can give the hon. Gentleman a response, although it is not yet the official Government response. It may be shorter than he anticipated.

Oliver Heald: Yesterday, I was able to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was a coincidence that the Prime Minister had visited his constituency on Tuesday and he had a red box with him during our debate in Westminster Hall yesterday. Now he seems to be telling us that he is about to form a Government. He is obviously having a good week, but I do not think that he should let the fact that Millwall won 5-0 last Saturday go to his head.

Simon Hughes: In reverse order: the Millwall victory that sent the Lions roaring into the first division is entirely to be commended; the red box yesterday was entirely coincidental as it was supplied by my office with some letters for me to sign, but it was good practice. I should also put it on the record that no deal has been reached between the Liberal Democrats and any other party before the general election. Lastly, the Prime Minister made a terrible error of judgment by coming to the school and making a speech over the heads of the young people. It may have lost him the votes of many of the parents at that school, but that is to be seen.

Andrew Miller: What was the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) doing?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been quite some latitude. Will hon. Members get back to the subject of the debate?

Jeremy Corbyn: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was at a primary school with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats that very afternoon.

Simon Hughes: I shall respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman and tell him that we spoke to the pupils rather than ignoring them.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made an important point about the wording and I am grateful for his attribution to my noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. There was a debate about what the right wording should be. The term "victim" was deemed inappropriate because it prejudges the outcome of the complaint and that clearly would be wrong. The term that had been used in the past was "person" and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is used in other statutes. However, I think that we can get away with using the word resident although it is not necessarily the best word. My understanding is that it does not cover only those who are permanently at an address, but anyone who is there at the time. Of course it would not cover someone who was there for a matter of moments and that may be a weakness. It may therefore be that we need to give the matter more consideration. The reason it is right to change the wording is that it is wrong to prejudge the outcome of the complaint.
	The legislation received wide support across the House and, as the Minister and his colleagues were at pains to point out, it gives the police a discretionary power in respect of certain activities. We look to the police to be wise in their discretion because there is a need to get the balance right between allowing lawful protest on the one hand and preventing intimidatory and improper protest on the other. The second should be outlawed, but absolutely not the first.

Charles Clarke: To respond briefly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), I am advised that we consider that the amendments do not change the effect of the clause and the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) are right. It covers any protests outside residential premises, anywhere being used as a dwelling, but it does not include hotels, for reasons that we discussed in Committee. We are satisfied with this and I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 22 agreed to.

After Clause 44

Lords amendment: No. 23, to insert the following new clause--Placing of advertisement relating to prostitution--
	(1) A person commits an offence if--
	(a) he places on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a public telephone an advertisement relating to prostitution, and
	(b) he does so with the intention that the advertisement should come to the attention of any other person or persons.
	(2) For the purposes of this section, an advertisement is an advertisement relating to prostitution if it--
	(a) is for the services of a prostitute, whether male or female; or
	(b) indicates that premises are premises at which such services are offered.
	(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, any advertisement which a reasonable person would consider to be an advertisement relating to prostitution shall be presumed to be such an advertisement unless it is shown not to be.
	(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
	(5) In this section--
	"public telephone" means--
	(a) any telephone which is located in a public place and made available for use by the public, or a section of the public, and
	(b) where such a telephone is located in or on, or attached to, a kiosk, booth, acoustic hood, shelter or other structure, that structure; and
	"public place" means any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise, other than--
	(a) any place to which children under the age of 16 years are not permitted to have access, whether by law or otherwise, and
	(b) any premises which are wholly or mainly used for residential purposes.
	(6) In section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) (arrest without warrant for arrestable offences), in subsection (2) (offences which are arrestable offences), after paragraph (c) insert-
	"(ca) an offence under section (Placing of advertisement relating to prostitution) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001;"."

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 24.

Charles Clarke: I shall devote a few moments to presenting this important new clause, which carries the support of the House. The two new clauses would make it an arrestable criminal offence to place prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes.
	To combat any changes in advertising strategy that result from attempts to circumvent the new offence, the new clauses would allow the Secretary of State to extend the provisions to cover other street furniture.
	Let me pay public tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who was motivated by events in her constituency to introduce a private Member's Bill. She has been a consistent campaigner on these matters, with general support across the House. The Government have long agreed with the policy ambitions set out in the new clause, but we did not feel that we had enough space to include them in the Bill. As the matter was pressed in the other place and because we have no policy disagreement with the provisions, we are glad to agree to the Lords amendment and to commend it to the House today.
	Prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes are a matter on which there has long been concern, which is reflected in the two new clauses. The cards are often explicit. They can be seen by children and can obscure important information, such as advertisements for Childline and the Samaritans. They are offensive and intimidating to those who use public telephones. They are part of the increasingly organised business of prostitution and can advertise young people involved in prostitution and, importantly, those trafficked for sexual exploitation.
	The individuals who are paid to place the cards can be intimidating, threatening and sometimes violent to members of the public and those employed to clean the telephone boxes. Telephone companies incur great expense in removing the cards while losing revenue from legitimate advertising.
	We recognise that the problem is at present confined to specific areas, such as central London and Brighton. It is also a serious issue in my Norwich constituency. However, it is a very serious problem. Every week, British Telecom removes some 150,000 cards from its 700 telephone boxes in central London. It is also a growing problem, which is why the offence would apply nationally. The offence would be committed by any person who places what a reasonable person would consider to be an advertisement relating to prostitution in a public telephone box.
	We are confident that the definition is sufficiently robust to cover advertisements that imply that the services of prostitutes are available without making this explicit on the face of the card. Equally, in the exceptional case where a person has naively put up an advertisement which appears to be for prostitution, but is genuinely shown not to be criminal, liability will not follow.
	The offence will attract a power of arrest. This will enable the police to take swift action to stop this nuisance occurring. Those convicted of the offence will face a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine. The level of penalty reflects the serious nature of the nuisance caused by the cards and our determination to prevent the individuals concerned from blighting the lives of those who live in the areas affected.
	We recognise that those behind organised prostitution will seek to circumvent any legislation that we introduce. That is why the second new clause gives the Secretary of State a power to extend the legislation to cover other types of public structures, such as bus shelters, by affirmative resolution.
	Finally, I should note that although this amendment is an important part of tackling the problem, there are other measures that can complement legislation. Oftel has had talks with the telecommunications industry about a call barring scheme and will develop further proposals in consultation with the industry. Part of the agreement with the industry is that we will do what we can in legislation and the industry will do what it can on the technological side.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister told us that the penalty would be a level 5 fine and a maximum of six months' imprisonment. He said that that demonstrated the Government's view of the seriousness of the crime. Can he give us some examples of other crimes for which the penalty is a level 5 fine and six months' imprisonment?

Charles Clarke: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information off the cuff. One of the pieces of advice that I have given myself--and usually taken--is not to give off-the-cuff information across the Floor of the House as it might not be well-informed. However, we take the matter extremely seriously, particularly the trafficking in people for prostitution. There is a whole range of other offences that are designed to deal with people who traffic in migrants in that way.
	I commend the amendments to the House. They are an important step forward that will help communities work in a more effective way.

Oliver Heald: The amendments were moved in the other place by the noble Baroness Buscombe, and I would like to pay tribute to the campaign that she and others have waged on the issue. Westminster city council was particularly concerned about this issue, which has also concerned hon. Members for many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will recall that Olga Maitland also campaigned on the issue--

Cheryl Gillan: She will be back, in Sutton and Cheam.

Oliver Heald: I am told that she is coming back to represent Sutton and Cheam and that will certainly be a happy moment.
	The concern that prompted the amendment was that people in areas such as Brighton and Hove, and central London, should not have to be confronted with sordid images when they are simply trying to make a telephone call. It is also expensive for an organisation such as British Telecom, which spends £250,000 a year clearing the cards from its 1,000 boxes in central London. The measure will allow people to make telephone calls without being pestered in that way.
	It is right that relatively serious penalties should be applied, for the reasons that the Minister mentioned. Those who are involved in the trade are often making considerable sums of money. If there are persistent offenders who, time and again, place cards in boxes and will not learn their lesson, tough penalties should be available to deal with them.

Simon Hughes: We agree strongly with the need to take action on this activity. It is offensive that every phone box in London is littered with such cards. As the Minister said, it is bad enough for the mass of the population, but it is particularly offensive to many women and inappropriate and unsuitable for children, as well as being unhelpful. We need to protect the public interest, albeit in what is technically private space. I am glad to hear that the private telephone companies are also taking their share of the work.
	I hope that when the police take action, with the support of local authorities such as Westminster, which has been assiduous in the matter, they will concentrate not on the runners--the people who are paid a bit of pocket money to put the cards in the phone boxes--but on the people who are making a lot of money behind the scenes. They are the big fish who need to be caught because they make a lot of money exploiting people in the sex trade.
	We must also revisit the wider debate. We are living a fiction in this country about prostitution. Like abortion, it has always happened and will always happen. If we delude ourselves into thinking that the present laws against it will stop it, we will deceive the public whom we are here to represent. It is right to deal with the issue of the cards in this Bill, but I hope that whichever party or parties are in government after the election, they will be brave enough to reconsider the law on prostitution.
	Lords amendment No. 23 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

Part 2

Lords amendment: No. 25, Leave out Part 2.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 38, 40 and 41.

Charles Clarke: Amendments Nos. 25 and 41 will have the effect of removing part 2, on information disclosure for the purposes of criminal proceedings, from the Bill. Amendment No. 36 is a drafting amendment consequential on the removal of the words in amendment No. 37, which is consequential on the removal of part 2 from the Bill. Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 are also consequential.
	This is the first group of amendments to be considered today with which the Government disagree, but we accept them under force majeure of the balance of the parties in the other place.

Oliver Heald: I am somewhat surprised by the Minister's remarks, because Lord Bassam said that he was happy to be associated with the amendments. He also complimented Lord Cope on the cogent way in which he had expressed the Opposition's view on the Bill. Lord Bassam also admitted that the Government's proposals required better and more detailed evaluation. He certainly seemed to say that he did not disagree with the amendments.

Charles Clarke: My noble Friend Lord Bassam was trying to pay tribute to the way in which Front Benchers had tried to work together to reach solutions in everybody's interest. However, on the substance of policy, we do not agree with two groups of amendments before us today--the current group and the other on clause 126, which deals with police conduct. We will accept the amendments because of our desire to get the whole Bill through.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendments were jointly tabled by the Government and the official Opposition in the other place. Is it in order for the Minister to resile from them?

Mike Hall: The Minister can do anything.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is entirely a matter for the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Charles Clarke: I am trying to express the Government's position as clearly as I can. Part 2 would have implemented Government policy to improve the ability of public authorities to disclose information for the purposes of criminal investigations or proceedings. That is an important part of the Government's overall strategy in the fight against crime and it is why I am disappointed that those clauses are being removed.
	Given the short time available to complete the parliamentary stages of the Bill, we have decided to give further scrutiny to that part of the legislation. If the Government are re-elected, we will consider the best way to proceed with those useful reforms and how to use other legislative vehicles to do so.

Nick Hawkins: I am afraid that we have just seen a most extraordinary approach to the amendments by the Minister, who seeks to reject everything that Lord Bassam said in jointly tabling the amendments with the official Opposition in the other place. It simply is not good enough for a Minister in the Lords to table amendments jointly with the Opposition and then for this Minister to say that the Government do not really agree with them. The House will also have noted the attitude of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who said a moment ago that the Minister could do anything. That has been the approach of the Government for the past four years and it is why they will be turfed out of office on 7 June. They have demonstrated contempt for the principles of democracy and the Minister cannot get away with saying that the Government are accepting the amendments only under force majeure in the other place--

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: No, because the Minister is trying to resile from what Lord Bassam said in jointly tabling the amendments and accepting the Government's defeat on amendment No. 35. I have made the point repeatedly that we have had inadequate time to debate the Government's concessions and, with only two minutes left this afternoon, it is indisputable that the Government have had to abandon the whole of part 2 as a result of these jointly tabled amendments.

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: No, I will not give way because time is short. The reason why that is happening is that Lord Bassam said as recently as yesterday in the other place:
	"we have jointly tabled the amendment seeking to remove Part 2 of the Bill."

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: No. I have told the Minister that I will not give way because the Government have given us so little time. Lord Bassam continued--

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask the hon. Gentleman to quote the whole statement made by my noble Friend in the other place?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister was premature in his intervention, because I proposed to continue the quotation. Lord Bassam said:
	"This will provide a period of time in which, no doubt, we can improve the quality of the legislation, if that is what is required, and perhaps undertake further consultations."-- Official Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2001; Vol. 624, c. 2173.]

Charles Clarke: That is not the whole sentence.

Nick Hawkins: That is the whole sentence. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that the amendments were tabled jointly--
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendment No. 25 agreed to [Special Entry].
	Madam Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 43 agreed to.

International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

John Battle: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 3rd April 2001 (International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:--

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
	The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bill was discussed in another place before it came to this House for debate in Committee. That debate was excellent, and the Bill is in good shape.
	In Committee, we discussed 58 of the amendments tabled by the Opposition, and only six were not debated. Our considerations gave rise to substantial and high-quality debate.
	Some of the matters tabled for consideration this afternoon have been discussed at all stages of the Bill so far. However, I am confident that we can deal with them in the time allowed, and that we can continue to work constructively on the details of the Bill. I am pleased that we are discussing it today, and I hope that we can make further good progress in the time remaining.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said in Committee on 1 May that quite good progress had been made on the Bill. I think that that is right; in my experience of the House, the quality of debate in Committee was exceptional.
	The motion is not merely a result of the fact that we are caught up in the timetable dictated by the Dissolution of Parliament. The Bill has to go through Parliament now so that Britain can be one of the first 60 states to ratify the Rome statute. We have been involved in shaping that statute from the outset, a process that has taken years, and our officials worked hard on its original provisions. We want to sign up early so that we can remain in a position to shape the International Criminal Court.
	Finally, much interest in the Bill has been expressed by non-governmental organisations such as the International Red Cross, and they have said that they want the Bill to go ahead. There has been almost universal support--including among Opposition Members--for the principles of the Bill, although I understand that some Opposition Back-Bench Members are still not comfortable with the position adopted by their Front-Bench colleagues.

Eric Forth: Correct.

John Battle: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) says that that is correct, but the matter is one for those on the Opposition Front Bench to sort out, not me.
	My point is that NGOs and other bodies outside the House with an interest in the matter have been assiduous in making representations. We have taken those representations seriously, and I hope that those bodies feel that we have taken many of their considerations on board.

Cheryl Gillan: I must inform the Minister that Conservative Front-Bench Members do not sort out our Back-Bench colleagues, but allow them to speak their minds as and when they wish. Not for one minute would I seek to impose my views on a piece of legislation, or those of other Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, on independent-minded and responsible Back Benchers. The Minister may think that we act in the same way as the Labour party so obviously does with regard to its members, but I must disabuse him.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, and for her typical generosity of spirit. Following her guidance, I hope that I shall be able to exercise a small degree of independence.
	Does my hon. Friend agree with the Minister's apparent contention that, when a body called an NGO expresses a view about a matter, that legitimises an amendment to legislation in this House? Members of Parliament are here to make our own judgment about what is right and what is wrong. We should take account of what NGOs say, but those organisation should not by any means have the first or last word on a matter.

Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend is right. Non- governmental organisations play an important role in making representations, and we should listen to them carefully. Where we find merit in the points that they put forward, we should pursue them.
	Indeed, it was a great shame that the Government did not listen more carefully to some of the representations made to them. We were forced to table amendments to the Bill in Committee so that matters proposed by well meaning and interested parties could be discussed. It was a great shame that the Minister could not persuade the Government to take into consideration the views of the much vaunted NGOs on which he seeks to rely.
	I am most disappointed that, on what is in effect the final day of this Parliament, the House should be faced with a programme motion on this Bill. The Minister moved a programme motion in the House on 3 April, at the beginning of proceedings on the Bill. He gave the undertaking then that consideration on Report and Third Reading would fall within a certain time frame, but today's motion goes back on that undertaking.

Edward Garnier: Does not it follow that the Minister not only did not listen to representations from NGOs, but that he did not listen to what he said to himself?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. and learned Friend is right. The Minister is well meaning, but I am afraid that he gets forced into moving in certain directions. This motion is a case in point. It is reprehensible to timetable the Bill at this stage, and it means that he has gone back on his original promise.
	I am disappointed with the motion for several reasons. As the Minister knows, I disapprove in principle of such motions, and of the way in which they have been used during this Parliament. I shall return to that matter later.
	I am especially disappointed because of what the Minister said in his opening remarks on the first day of our Committee deliberations. He said:
	"The Bill is sizeable, legally complex and technical. Its purpose, as was made clear in the excellent Second Reading debate, is to enable Britain to sign up properly to the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court."--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 April 2001; c. 3.]
	The Bill is extremely complex and technical, and requires detailed scrutiny. Consideration in Committee lasted for 25 hours--less the time spent finding a Chairman for one of our sittings--and that allowed us to touch on some of the topics. However, we were not able to touch on all the proposals that might have improved the Bill.
	The Bill was far from perfect, despite a very rapid scrutiny process in another place, and Government amendments had to be tabled. Even after a so-called consultation process, the Bill remained imperfect. Today's programme motion shows how the Government have treated the Bill with disrespect and disregard.

John Battle: It is worth reminding the House that the Opposition said that four issues should be debated in Committee--the seven-year opt-out, discretion over warrants, command responsibility and declarations on ratification. Only one of those items was not discussed.
	In Committee, our discussion covered subjects as diverse as the European Court of Human Rights, the aggressive situation developing between China and Taiwan, the Lockerbie trial, Diego Garcia, NATO's action in Kosovo, no-fly zones in Iraq, corruption at the Olympics, the politicisation of the ICC, the means of electing ICC personnel, Israel, the Falklands dispute, parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, the Pinochet question, peace talks and face-to-face diplomacy, Angola, nuclear weapons and the history of the law of war.
	I should have hoped that that variety of topics might be seen as offering a sufficient range of debate in Committee, but we accept that some matters remain that the Opposition want to raise.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the whole point of this stage of consideration of a Bill is to allow those who were not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee to contribute to the debate and table amendments, and that to quote what happened in Committee is an utter irrelevance at this stage?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We are, in fact, discussing a programme motion.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister makes my point for me. This is a complex Bill which involves serious issues, not a simple look at a proposed statute. It involves discussing the concepts around the Bill, its implications and outcomes. The Minister's list makes my case that the legislation deserves full scrutiny.

Edward Garnier: In his catalogue of matters discussed in Committee, the Minister did not mention the hobby horse that I exercised quite frequently. I refer to the way in which Parliament is wholly incapable, under our constitutional arrangements, of amending treaties or gaining any legislative purchase on a treaty that is made by the Government, as the Executive. Other right hon. and hon. Members may not realise that the exercise that we went through in Committee was largely Ruritanian, in that we could achieve very little in persuading the Government that what they may have done in signing up to the treaty was not perfect.
	Will my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) draw to the attention of the House the huge constitutional implications involved in passing the Bill today? We are handing over to an extra-territorial body--not the United Nations or the European Union, but a court--constitutional powers that properly belong to this Chamber.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. and learned Friend has made valid points that have been repeated at several stages during the Committee's proceedings, and I feel sure that when he moves amendments in his own right from the Front Bench, he will add to them. He is right. We are putting on to the statute book our agreement to a treaty. From debates in Committee, it seems to be a pick-and-mix affair. The Government could pick and choose bits from the treaty that they wanted to include in the legislation and disregard other parts. Those matters deserve a great deal of scrutiny. In considering something that is so long term, with such vast constitutional implications, we owe it to the electorate to do our job properly by scrutinising the Bill and making sure that we have examined everything in detail.

John Bercow: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a profound point. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) agree that its significance is heightened by our knowledge that under the Standing Orders of this House, there is a prohibition on the tabling of oral questions that seek Ministers' exegesis of treaty articles? Does that not underline how crucial it is to have adequate time this afternoon for proper consideration, for once this afternoon's opportunity has passed, there might be no other?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It adds weight to the discussions on the programming motion and backs up our objections.
	Some Labour Members have said that our attitude to the Bill means that we are opposed to the International Criminal Court. We are no such thing. Conservative Front-Bench Members have consistently said that they support the principles behind the Bill, and who would not? However, we would be failing in our duty if we did not scrutinise the Bill properly. I think that, in all honesty, the Minister agrees with me on that fundamental point.

Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: There is not much time on this programme motion, and I know that some of my colleagues wish to speak. I would like to take up some of the points that the Minister made in moving the programming motion. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later.
	Some of the Minister's arguments about the programming of this stage of the Bill are utter rubbish. He says that he wants Britain to be among the first 60 countries to sign up to the statute, so it is desperately important to get the Bill on to the statute book now. If it was so desperately important, why did nothing happen after the Foreign Secretary--who is not in his place--said on 20 July 1998 that we would be among the first 60 countries to ratify the statute? That is an example of the Labour party saying one thing and doing another.
	From 20 July 1998 onwards, the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers could easily have introduced legislation in this House and had a perfectly adequate period of time in which to discuss it. On 27 October 1999--more than a year later--I called for legislation to be brought forward so that the House could do its job properly, scrutinise it over a long period of time and get it right, but I am afraid that nothing happened.

John Battle: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that we allowed, from the outset, a long period of consultation so that all parties could give their views on the Bill?

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister must have a selective memory. The consultation process on the Bill took place largely during the recess. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary complaining about the short time available. The Government suddenly woke up to the fact that they had done nothing about this, and that it was one of their do-gooding poses.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion before the House is not about consultation but about the programme and the time for consideration.

Cheryl Gillan: I am sorry if I am stepping outside the bounds of the programming motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Minister raised it on an intervention, and I think it right to put the House straight on the consultation process if he is claiming that it was a contributory factor in cutting short the scrutiny of the Bill at this stage. Despite repeated calls from this side of the House for the legislation to be introduced in short order, nothing happened. There was complete inaction.
	The motion does not surprise me. It fits into the Government's pattern of falling back on what used to be the guillotine and is now the programming process. At this stage of the Parliament, it is worth recalling that in this Session, 22 Bills have been programmed in this House. Only four have not been programmed--three consolidated fund measures, which go through on one day, and a capital allowances measure. The Government are willing to continue to subscribe to the stifling of debate on important matters such as the scrutiny of the Bill without caring a fig. The Minister shakes his head, but he does not care a fig.
	Because Conservative Front-Bench Members, who have spoken on this matter consistently over the past two or three years, have asked for legislation to be introduced, there have been plenty of opportunities for the Minister to discuss it with us and negotiate its passage. Yet the Government brought the Bill forward at the eleventh hour, when they knew full well that they would be calling a general election. It was foot and mouth disease that diverted the date of the election. The Government chose to bring the Bill forward in the House of Lords, with the intention that it would receive no scrutiny whatever in this House. It is only by virtue of the great disaster that has befallen our farming industry that the Bill was able to have a Committee stage. The Government's disregard for the legislation is reprehensible.
	The Minister said that Britain needs to be among the first 60 to ratify the statute. This year, only two countries have done so--Andorra and Argentina. One of the reasons for guillotining proceedings on the Bill may be so that we can be among the top 60, but there are still 30 countries to go. Today, I received a read-out showing the rate at which countries are ratifying the treaty: it is not with great rapidity. The Minister cannot, therefore, deploy that argument in his favour at this stage.

Ann Clwyd: We need an International Criminal Court for the same reason that I have to go to Scotland yard in half an hour to discuss bringing Iraqi war criminals to justice--because no such court is in being. The faster that we can set up the court, the better it will be for the sufferers of torture, of crimes against humanity, of genocide and so on. That is why I urge the hon. Lady to give the Bill full speed.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady is well known for her good work and I hope that her meeting goes well. However, the absence of an International Criminal Court has not prevented criminals from being brought to justice. There were tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The court will be a vehicle whereby people can be brought to justice. Let us face the facts, however: the hon. Lady knows that, given the programme motion and the Government's railroading attitude, of course the measure will be passed. I should like an International Criminal Court--I make no bones about that--but I do not see why I should roll over and accept the Government's imperfect proposals which do not offer the protections needed for our citizens, especially our armed services personnel.
	There is no point in introducing half measures. Once a measure is on the statute book, it is in the statute book, so we have a duty to work on the proposals, in the House, in a timely and proper fashion--not in a rushed way, at the fag end of a Parliament. I hope that the Government are swept from power at the election, that we return to office and can consider the measure properly. We will bring common sense to bear on it.
	Other hon. Members want to speak. I willingly put on record the fact that the programme motion is disgraceful. The Government have constantly eroded democracy and this measure is a flagship for that erosion. The Bill should have been negotiated between the Front Benches and should have been discussed during the body of a Parliament--not slipped in, slyly, at the end. We shall vote against the motion as a protest.

Jeremy Corbyn: Normally, I am not keen on programme motions; Parliament ought to have the opportunity to discuss legislation in detail. However, it must be obvious, even to Opposition Members, that Parliament is about to be dissolved and that an election is coming--perhaps they have not heard about that--so if the Bill is to become law, it has to go through today. The matter is as simple as that: therefore, there is to be a programme motion.
	I am one of the Labour Back Benchers who has occasionally been forced to raise differences of opinion with Front-Bench Members--my Whip, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) is laughing--[Hon. Members: "No, he is not!"] Perhaps he is taking notes--no doubt for future commendation--. I have tabled amendments, but I am intrigued by the contribution made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). It is ground-breaking, it is mind-blowing--it is galactic. He seems to be saying that it is time to bring the royal prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny. If that is so, I am delighted and--given the absence, tragically, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the next Parliament--if the hon. and learned Gentleman is re-elected, he and I can no doubt promote a Bill to bring the royal prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny.

Edward Garnier: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman and I will not often agree. In Standing Committee, I taxed the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) with the issue that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) addresses and mentioned the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is outrageous that Parliament should have no purchase whatever on the treaty-making prerogative of the Government. Earlier in the debate, Labour Members tittered when I used the word "sovereign"; they thought that I was talking about the Queen, but I was talking about this Government. It is essential that a Parliament dominated by the Executive, thanks to their supine majority, should not be allowed to make treaties on behalf of the public without Members of the House of Commons having some say in the matter. At least on this occasion, I am glad to be in some agreement with the hon. Member for Islington, North.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members of the wording of the motion that we are discussing.

Jeremy Corbyn: The problem with the programme motion is that it does not allow sufficient time for the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and me to table motions to bring the royal prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny. Had there been sufficient time, we could no doubt have raised that issue.
	The important point is that if a Government--good, bad or indifferent--sign international treaties, a Parliament should have the right to deal with those treaties in detail. We can deal only with consequential legislation, not the substance of the treaties. For an accountable Parliament and for accountable democracy, that issue must be revisited in future Parliaments. That is most important.
	If the Bill is passed today, we shall be among the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty. That will mean that the court can be established and begin work. I hope that we are among those countries and that the court does start working. I look forward to the Minister's comments, either in response to this short debate or later in the Bill's proceedings. I hope that there will be a process whereby we can review the operation of the court, the appointment of its judges--

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the wording of the motion.

Jeremy Corbyn: Once again, time is the problem, Madam Deputy Speaker. The programme motion would not allow us to discuss the points I was outlining. However, I am sure that the Minister will want to deal with them.
	Some of the proposals to be debated under the motion relate to the wish--in some cases unstated, although it is more overt in others--that the ICC should apply to everyone except us. The principle of a treaty is that a degree of sovereignty is ceded to another body. I am, therefore, concerned that some of the amendments would increase the discretion available to Ministers, either in this country or elsewhere, as to whether to proceed with cases. I wish that there was sufficient time to debate my view: there should be much less discretion, or none whatever. Surely, that is the principle of universal jurisdiction that lies behind the measure.
	We have only a short time to consider eight or nine groups of amendments. I hope that we have time to discuss all of them, but above all, I hope that the measure is passed. It will deal with the difficulties that many of us faced while trying to secure justice in an international tribunal for victims in places where was no special process. There was such a process for Nazi Germany; there is one for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia. However, there was no special process for Chile and Cambodia and in many, many cases throughout the world.
	However serious we are about eliminating the main perpetrators of murder, human rights abuses and terrorism against whole civilian populations, we must acknowledge that the passage of the Bill will not solve all those problems. However, at least it is a step forward and offers a forum in which some of the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses can be brought to justice. I hope that we achieve that today.

Robert Maclennan: The position of programme motions in this Parliament has advanced rapidly. I approve of this one. In the light of the imminent election, it is certainly necessary to give effect to the clear will of Parliament--as expressed from the Front Benches--that there should be an International Criminal Court.
	I am glad that the debate has allowed the instructive exchange between the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on the prerogative power. May I please sign up to their club? I wholly endorse what they said and wish only that I could pursue the matter in this place in future. It is entirely desirable that the House should be more involved in the process of making treaties, which have such a significant impact on our country, and there is, I hope, a growing consensus, but that remains to be seen.
	The motion is entirely sensible. It allows reconsideration by all Members of the House of many matters, most of which have already been considered and, I believe, rather well debated at some length in Committee. The Committee was also programmed, and that was done with a degree of judgment as to what was required. The Minister was entirely reasonable in drawing attention to the scope of the debates that we had already had in Committee, and to the fact that very little was not considered in Committee that Members would have wished to consider.
	My party has no objection of principle to the programming of debate. I was a member of the Hansard Society committee, which was chaired by the late Lord Rippon of Hexham, that deliberated on reform of the legislative process. I believe that programming allows a more complete and orderly discussion of issues, which safeguards the interests of Back Benchers, provided that programmes take full account of the nature of the discussions and of the variety of matters that it might be important to consider during the later stages of the Bill.
	The only objection that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have to programming is that, as it has been carried out during this Parliament, it has tended to be laid down too early in the legislative process, and not by the Standing Committee following the Second Reading debate, which would be the right time to make such determinations. I hope that the next Parliament will return to that issue, so that the concerns of the hon. Member for Islington, North and others about programming can be taken into account. If, for whatever reason, the Standing Committee cannot reach agreement, the matter might have to return to the Chamber to be determined, but I consider that this has been a reasonable start to the process of trying to order debate to ensure that all the major issues are addressed.
	I fervently believe, as I said in Committee, that it is crucial that the Bill passes. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) seems to give her support to the doctrine of unripe time. She seems to be saying that although in principle she favours the establishment of the court, it is not the right time for us to ratify the statute. Would she regard it as the right time for us to do so when 60 other countries have already set the processes in concrete, which would exclude us from participation in the choice of the judges operating in the court?

Cheryl Gillan: The right hon. Gentleman is putting in my mouth words that I never said--in fact, I have said the reverse. I have said that if the Minister is trying to justify the programme motion with the lame excuse that we need to be in the first 60 countries to ratify, it is worth remembering that only two countries have ratified this year, bringing us up to a total of 30, and that there is plenty of time, as far as I know, to be in the first 60 but to give this legislation proper scrutiny in the middle of a decent Parliament, when it is not being rushed through with undue haste.

Robert Maclennan: The hon. Lady begs a great many questions in talking about the amount of time that is required. I do not know whether she has considered what is going on in the legislative and ratification processes of all the other countries. She might be right that it will take a little time for a sufficient number of members to ratify the treaty, but I would not wish to leave such a matter to chance, and it is very important that this country gives a lead. It is important not only for us to be among those countries that can influence the operation of the court, its structure, its rules of procedure and the like, but for us to give a lead to other countries that might, for unsuitable reasons, be delaying ratification of the treaty.
	I commend the Government for their handling of the Bill. The Minister has been extremely sympathetic in his handling of interventions and amendments. He has shown not merely tolerance of arguments, including some that I have made at some length, but a genuine sympathy for the process of deliberation. It is a travesty of what happened in Committee to suggest that he and the Government have been unsuitably precipitate in their handling of the Bill. The reverse is the case, as will be clear to anyone who takes the trouble to read the record. I have no doubt that those NGOs that were spoken of with a certain disfavour by one Conservative Back Bencher earlier will at least read Hansard. They will know that there has been suitable deliberation, and that although the one issue on which uncertainty remains--universal jurisdiction--has had to be temporarily shelved, that shelving was not the result of any failure by the Government to provide enough time to debate it.

Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman is being much too generous to the Government, given the timing of the presentation of the Bill to the House of Commons. In the first instance, the Bill was never expected to reach the stage that it has reached, because it would have been lost had there been a 3 May election. The fact that it has been timetabled now to complete proceedings before we dissolve means that the Government cannot accept amendments, however good the arguments adduced in their favour by the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of us in Committee or, indeed, now; otherwise, the Bill will not become law. That is why the timetable motion is a disgrace, and does dishonour to so important an issue.

Robert Maclennan: It is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman to indulge in such hyperbole. There has been a great deal of time to consider all the issues that were before the Committee, and many of them were considered in another place before they were raised by us in Committee. The Government have decided, in the last analysis, to stand, not on the issue of time, but on what they have decided is appropriate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not agree with the Government on universal jurisdiction, but even on that issue it has not been lack of time that has caused the Government to end the discussions. They have done so because they believe that they are right, and, to be candid, they are entitled to do so; they have at this time a majority.
	I hope that, in the limited time that is available to us to consider these matters, we shall not indulge in criticism of the procedures. It will be more interesting to revert, as soon as possible, to the issue of substance, while recognising that the paramount interest of this country in today's proceedings is implementation of the Bill, to enable us to give effect in our domestic law to the provisions that have already been agreed by our signature to the statute of Rome.

Mike Gapes: I will not delay the House long, but it is important to place on the record from the Labour Back Benches, from someone who served on the Committee, my belief that we had an excellent debate in Committee and covered a wide range of areas.
	It is somewhat duplicitous or hypocritical for the Opposition to advance arguments that imply that although they allegedly support the Bill, they are voting against the programme motion. It is not yet clear to me whether they will vote against Third Reading, but it was suggested in Committee by at least one Opposition Member that they would vote against the Bill if amendments were not agreed. Perhaps the modern Conservative party, in which the Back-Bench tail wags the dog, is in fact a kind of Leninist party--

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion on the Order Paper is a programme motion.

Mike Gapes: The Conservative party supports the Bill but opposes the programme motion, like a rope supporting a hanging man.
	The Bill meets many of the aims that the Conservative party claimed that it wanted to achieve. We had extensive debate in Committee. The programme motion gives us the chance to get the legislation through the House today. If we cannot do so, the Bill will not receive Royal Assent before the election, and it will be lost.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Gapes: No. The hon. Lady did not give way to me, so I see no reason why I should give way to her.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Lady may think that, but perhaps she is referring to what is inside her head.
	If the Bill falls, it will not be easy to reintroduce it quickly. It would again have to go through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament following the election on 7 June. Given the amount of time that the Opposition would no doubt want to discuss all the clauses and their amendments, we would have to spend several weeks more debating the same issues and making the same arguments as those we advanced extensively in Committee--whether it be the Conservative party's friendship with General Pinochet, the situation in Serbia or the problem of international jurisdiction.
	We would not be able to complete all stages until the end of July, or even October or November. There would be no guarantee that this country would be one of the first 60 to pass such legislation. Therefore, we would not be one of the most influential countries in the International Criminal Court. For those reasons, we must vote for the programme motion and conclude business on the Bill today.

Patrick Cormack: The Government must be delighted to have such subservient minions as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who has just addressed the House with such conspicuous lack of articulate sense.
	I oppose the programme motion not because I am against the concept of an international court; I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on the Front Bench. However, it is ludicrous to rush through a Bill that is supported in principle on both sides of the House. As there is a commitment to such legislation on both sides of the House, it matters not who forms the Government after the election--although it matters very much from other points of view. All we need is a commitment to putting the matter near the beginning of the Queen's Speech and to getting a Bill through the House. Any Member who is concerned with these issues--some of us have not had the benefit of serving on the Committee--must know that they are of great complexity and far-reaching importance and that it is crucial that we get the legislation right.

Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: I am sorry, but I do not have the time to do so.
	In rushing the Bill through the House, there is a danger of our creating bad law. I want to say that, above all, that is symptomatic of the Government's steamroller approach, to which we have become increasingly accustomed during this Session of this very subservient Parliament, in which those in serried ranks behind the Government have supported whatever the Government have said and have been prepared to do whatever the Government have wanted them to do.

John Bercow: Craven lickspittles.

Patrick Cormack: As my hon. Friend says, with his normal self-effacing modesty, they are craven lickspittles--but far be it from me to use such appalling jargon.
	The Government have been able to do whatever they have wanted because of their huge majority. The electorate ought to have regard to that, as should Labour Members. None of us knows the result of the election. Many think that they know, but no Member in this Chamber does know. There will be a time--[Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would stop behaving in such an unministerial manner, by sitting on the Front Bench making silly interventions.

Mike Gapes: rose--

Patrick Cormack: I need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman.
	Sooner or later--it could well be 8 June--Labour Members will find themselves on the Opposition Benches, and will not want legislation to be steamrollered through as it has been--
	It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
	Question put:--
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 238, Noes 90.

Question accordingly agreed to.

International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Amendments of the ICC Statute

'If an amendment is adopted to the ICC Statute under Article 121, within six months of the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties which adopts such amendment Her Majesty's Government shall obtain approval for such amendment by positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament, failing such approval being given six months after the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties Her Majesty's Government will give notice for withdrawal under Article 127.'.--[Mr. Blunt.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 2. We discussed it in Committee, but I chose to withdraw it so that we could return to it on Report. It deals with immensely important principles, to which we referred in the debate on the programme motion, despite Madam Deputy Speaker's energetic efforts to stop us. We are especially concerned about the ability of Parliament to oversee the Executive and the way in which it can--or cannot--control the royal prerogative power of treaty making. An interesting alliance was formed in the earlier debate between the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), all of whom identified the need to implement the principle that is at the heart of the new clause, which would give more power to Parliament to oversee the Executive.
	The new clause also goes to the heart of the Rome statute and the problems that are inherent in it, which the Opposition tried to correct in Committee.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman knows my opinions on the royal prerogative. Will he make it clear that the purpose of the new clause is to strengthen the Bill, not to impede it? He appears to be saying that if any change is made to the ICC statute, that should be discussed by us. Is that over and above what is in the Bill, or is he making a genuine attempt to ensure parliamentary accountability?

Crispin Blunt: I am happy to allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns. This is a genuine attempt to increase the accountability of the Executive. It is possible to make substantial changes to the statute after we have concluded our proceedings and, unless we accept the new clause, we will have no means of bringing the Executive to account.
	The hon. Gentleman will notice that the new clause refers specifically to article 121, which is the mechanism in the Rome statute by which amendments can be made. I have tabled it because I am concerned about the fault lines in the statute, which the article identifies. We have signed up to the statute, and it is possible that France will do the same. However, Her Majesty's Government have negotiated our proceedings in such a way that it is difficult to believe that other major countries, such as China, Russia, India and the United States of America, will also sign up. That is because the statute grants power on a nation-by-nation basis. There is no recognition of the contribution that each nation makes to world security or of the balance of influence in the world.
	The statute sets out the majority that is needed for it to be amended. Fundamental amendments to the list of crimes will require a seven eighths majority of the states party to the statute to agree. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that even if the statute is amended fundamentally by changing articles 5, 6, 7 and 8, seven eighths of the countries representing 1.1 billion people could outvote the countries representing 3.8 billion people, if China and India accede. Governments who represent more than three quarters of the world's population could be outvoted on the most fundamental changes.
	In Committee, the Solicitor-General made it clear that if changes arise from a seven eighths majority under article 121, they would have to be implemented in primary legislation because they would change the nature of what constitutes a crime in English law. I acknowledge that. However, he was not clear about changes to the way in which the court will be administered, which could be fundamental to its procedures and how it pursues those people whom it identifies as criminals.
	We spent much time in Committee discussing the possibility of the ICC trying to bring British citizens to justice when the United Kingdom has decided that they have no case to answer. That could happen. I am sure that the hon. Member for Islington, North would say that that is appropriate because that is what the ICC is for. If individual nations seek to defend citizens in the event that they have committed a crime as decided by the ICC, those people should be brought to justice. If we in the United Kingdom decided that there was no case to bring against a British subject but there was still a warrant for their arrest and a desire to bring them to trial at the ICC, there would be a crisis between the UK and the ICC.
	The way in which the court will operate, how individuals are elected to various positions and how the pre-trial chamber will work are matters that are contained in the detail of the statute, which can be amended by a two-thirds majority of the states parties. A collection of small countries representing a small fraction of the world's population could outvote the larger countries and a substantial majority of the world's population. In those terms, the figures become even more dramatic.
	The interests of the large states have not been represented or protected in the statute, and a mechanism should have been found to enable that to happen. That is why, sadly, the large states are unlikely to ratify the treaty. In the end, that will be calamitous to the prospect of the ICC becoming the successful institution that I believe right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House want it to be.
	The purpose of the new clause is to enable Parliament to have the opportunity, every time an amendment is agreed to the ICC statute under article 121, to consider it within six months. The Government would have to obtain the positive approval of both Houses. That is not a substantial parliamentary burden to place upon the Executive. A simple motion would have to be passed in each place. The clause does not provide that the procedure should be by way of positive resolution. It would impose a limited burden on the Executive in terms of parliamentary time.
	Given that changes to the statute could be fundamental to the way in which the ICC works, the clause should commend itself to the House. The principle behind it appears to have the commendation of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North when we were debating the programme motion. In Committee, the Solicitor- General chose not to oppose my point in principle. He said:
	"There is still a possibility for Parliament to examine other changes and express its views."
	That adduces the Ponsonby report.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman added:
	"Perhaps parliamentary procedure rules need to be changed; that is a matter to which we are alive and are happy to consider, but in a different context."--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 May 2001; c. 276.]
	As the position in principle has been conceded by implication by the Solicitor-General in Committee, and given the view that has been expressed across the philosophical divide in the House about the necessity for Parliament to take greater power over the Executive's exercise of royal prerogative powers in this respect, the clause should commend itself to the House, and I hope that it will.

Edward Garnier: I support the new clause because it allows us to consider the huge constitutional implications that lie behind the Government's prerogative powers, which they hold in trust for the sovereign, in the making of treaties.
	In Committee, I complained on several occasions--no doubt to the great inconvenience and boredom of other members--that we could amend the Bill, subject to the arithmetic of Committee membership, but we could gain no purchase on the statute of Rome. All three parties represented in Committee agreed that the ICC was an aim worthy of achievement. However, we did not agree with the detail of the statute of Rome--the treaty that we were signing up to--in every respect. We had fundamental concerns, not least about the protection of our armed forces and our military and political commanders if the statute of Rome were to be ratified.
	The clause highlights the absence of connection between the Chamber and the Government, which is the sovereign. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when we were debating the programme motion, by means of the statute of Rome we are handing over powers to an extra-territorial body. We are not handing the powers of our citizens, which we hold in trust for them, to an extra-governmental body such as the United Nations or the European Union. They are being handed to a court. Once the court is set up after ratification by 60 states, Parliament will have little influence over it, except in the most indirect way.
	I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for reintroducing the debate at the 59th minute of the 11th hour of this Parliament. I am not necessarily wedded to the exact detail of his scheme, but that does not matter. Other schemes have been suggested. In the other place in the early part of the year, Lord Lester of Herne Hill mentioned referring treaties to Select Committees of the other place. He talked about the Ponsonby rule and about the Conservative Administration publishing impact statements for the consideration of Parliament on the effect of treaties upon the UK. However, none of the schemes that we have so far discussed allows in any real way for the elected Members of this place to have any control over how the sovereign power of exercising the prerogative is dealt with by the Government.
	For once, I do not attack the motives of Ministers. They have plenty to be embarrassed about, but their motives in wanting the ICC to come into existence are of the finest. However, they appear to forget the constitutional issues that underlie the making of treaties, and the handing over of Parliament's powers and government to extra-territorial bodies, which must necessarily follow, is something that we ignore at our peril.
	I may be wrong, but I suspect that until those matters came to be discussed in Committee, many Labour Members who served in Committee, and certainly many Members who were not on it, had no idea that they had no purchase on the treaty.

Des Browne: I did.

Edward Garnier: Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows everything. He showed us that in Committee. I am grateful for his attendance and his contributions. He adorned our debates in every sense, but he was unusual. There are many Members--this is not a party political point--who are not aware of the constitutional arrangements and are happy to troop sheep-like through the Lobby at the behest of the Government Whips, little realising that they will be handing over to extra-territorial bodies huge powers that they will never be able to recover.
	We are sent here by the electorate to represent their interests. I suspect that they do not send us here--I know that this is the position in my case--to give the Government huge powers to hand over our responsibilities to extra-territorial bodies. That simple point is often missed and I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate for providing an opportunity to debate it.

Robert Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for returning to the matter on the Floor of the House, not because I would like his new clause to be accepted or the progress of the Bill impeded in any way, but because parliamentary deliberation on treaties is an important constitutional issue that deserves wider and more extensive scrutiny in the post-election period.
	Apropos of the new clause, I recall an incident in the development of our constitutional processes in Scotland. A certain lady became a lady licentiate of St. Andrews university. She was one of its first female graduates and, as such, she claimed the right to enjoy the franchise to vote for the university Member of Parliament. Had she been conceded that right, she would have been the first woman in the United Kingdom to have access to the vote. However, when the matter came before the court, her claim was overruled and the judge said that the constitution of our country could not be changed by a side wind.
	As we were not able to extend the franchise to ladies through that adventurous episode in the Scottish courts, I suspect that it would be unlikely that we will be able to change the constitution on treaty making by assenting to the new clause--[Interruption.] That is not to impugn the motives of the hon. Member for Reigate or undermine the constitutional fact that Parliament can do what it likes with respect to legislation. None the less, on an issue of such importance, it would be more sensible to have a little time to deliberate on the implementation of the underlying principle of parliamentary involvement in treaty making, and review alternative ways of doing that. It is not necessarily the fact that we want to give Parliament the automatic power to dispense with a treaty obligation in defiance of the wishes of the Government of the day.

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman made a valid point about wider constitutional questions and asked for a little time to consider them. I remind him and the House that, under the terms of the statute of Rome, there is all the time in the world. It prescribes that there shall be no amendments until seven years after it comes into force, and it is unlikely to do so for another year. In other words, we have eight years before we are faced with the first amendment, which is two full Parliaments--a long enough time, I should have thought, to have a leisurely debate on the constitutional principle that we are discussing.

Robert Maclennan: I am obliged to the Foreign Secretary and delighted that he feels that degree of urgency about effecting change in the processes of which he has given notice; I hope that what he implies is justified.

Edward Garnier: What the Foreign Secretary said is true, as it appears in article 121 of the treaty of Rome. However, the serious point is that, in that eight-year period, the House can do nothing about the matter. My complaint is that the House of Commons has no influence whatever on the making or suggestion of any amendments to the treaty.

Robert Maclennan: If I understood the Foreign Secretary correctly, he was making the point that, under the statute, the process for making amendments cannot become operative within seven years. That is certainly long enough to make changes to our domestic procedures to allow effective scrutiny and involvement of the House of Commons and, perhaps, of another place, in the processes of treaty making. I put it no more strongly than that; I am not entirely certain about the matter and would like to have a genuine national debate about whether we want to take away from the Executive the last word in such a matter. However, it is useful to debate the subject, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Reigate has tabled the new clause. 4.15 pm

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, as an awful lot of amendments have been tabled; I hope that there will be time to debate them this afternoon.
	I have my doubts about the new clause, but I do not doubt the motive of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in tabling it. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, there cannot be any amendments until seven years after, I assume, the first 60 ratifications, which will make the treaty operational. As he said, there will probably be eight years until anything can happen, so there will be plenty of opportunities in the House during that period to consider any mechanism for reporting and reviewing the way in which amendments should operate.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) that the way in which the royal prerogative operates in treaty making is important. A central deficit of British constitutional arrangements is the fact that the Executive have always had much more power in international affairs than Parliament. We can legislate and vote only on consequential matters or have a vote of confidence in the Government, which are fairly blunt instruments for dealing with international affairs. There is no mechanism for dealing in a detailed way with the Executive's treaty making. A new Parliament will provide a good opportunity to review that.
	When the Minister replies, will he comment on the reporting of what British representatives do in international organisations? There are many international forums, such as the United Nations and various UN and UN-related bodies, including the International Labour Organisation, the Human Rights Commission and many others, in which British representatives participate in debates and resolutions and agree decisions. At the end of the day, those things are fairly open, but there is no proper mechanism for reporting to the House--other than on the most dramatic events--what British representatives do. Any review ought to say that there should be a method of parliamentary scrutiny and, possibly, parliamentary involvement in such matters. It is all a question of how accountable we make the Executive in international matters.
	When the Bill is enacted, we will cede quite a lot to an international court. Frankly, I wish that we were ceding more because there are weaknesses in the Bill, which I have tried to address in a couple of amendments. Generally speaking, we are establishing the principle of an international body to deal with criminals, or potential criminals, in a way that has not been possible so far unless, as I mentioned earlier, a special process was established, such as that for dealing with the situation in Germany, Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. There is a case for setting up such a body, and I hope that we agree to it. However, I suspect that, in his new clause, the hon. Member for Reigate is confusing two different things. He is saying that there should be more scrutiny--I agree with that--but he is also saying that matters should come back to Parliament if there is going to be any change in statute. There will be no change in the statute for the first seven years of the treaty becoming operational, so there will be plenty of opportunity to deal with that issue anyway.

John Battle: It is perfectly proper for us to discuss the principles and practice of parliamentary deliberation on treaties on the Floor of the House. That is a good and important debate, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said frequently in Committee. This afternoon, there has been consensus that we should address that theme. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has participated actively in discussion of the Bill to the last moments of his time as a Member of Parliament, and leaves a large challenge to the House to address those matters in a timely way in future.
	I want to argue that it may not be proper to use the Bill to change our procedures for scrutinising treaties in the House; the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for that. The process of scrutiny is a significant question that comes within the ambit of discussion of the Bill. However, the Bill's aim and purpose is to allow us to ratify the statute of Rome and sign up to the International Criminal Court. The new clause is unnecessary, not simply because of the question of time, of which we are well aware, but because amendments to the statue will come before Parliament in the normal course of events. They will come before Parliament in two ways: there will be amendments that require implementation in domestic law, as the statute itself does--for example, on new crimes--or there will be technical changes that do not require primary legislation, but which will still be considered by Parliament before the Government accept them.
	The Committee agreed that we should not use the Bill to introduce back-door legislation, and that the Bill should not be a vehicle for redefining criminal law or our criminal court procedure. It would therefore be inappropriate for the new clause to be written into the Bill to shift us in that direction.
	Amendments to the statute already fall within the scope of parliamentary procedures for scrutiny, including the Ponsonby rule whereby they must lie before Parliament for 21 days before acceptance. Parliament would have time to debate any issues arising. All treaties and amendments not requiring legislative changes are subject to ministerial accountability to Parliament in exactly the same way as other areas of policy. It is not as though there is no scrutiny; the question is whether there is appropriate scrutiny. That is the larger question. I gave evidence to the Procedure Committee on this subject on 13 July 2000. On that occasion I emphasised that the Government remain open to considering ways of contributing to efficient and effective scrutiny of treaties.
	The new clause refers to article 121 of the statute, which provides for changes to the statute only when they are accepted by seven eighths of state parties. That is a high threshold, in addition to the time constraint and the fact that there would be no amendments for seven years. In the light of the discussion, which can be continued more appropriately elsewhere in the House, I ask the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) to withdraw his new clause.

Crispin Blunt: I listened to the Minister, who finished by referring to the threshold of seven eighths. I might point out to him that the threshold is one quarter of the world's population, as represented by its states, so the threshold is not quite as high as he implies.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for explaining the origin of the expression "side wind", which featured in our discussion in Committee. He pointed out, when I muttered at him from a sedentary position, that the court cannot change our constitution, but of course Parliament can. If we chose to do so, there is no reason why we could not change the Bill.
	The Foreign Secretary said that we had plenty of time--eight years. I got the impression that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) agreed with him in that respect. We may have eight years in which to come to grips with the matter, but I would not mind making a small wager with both the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Islington, North that in eight years, when amendments under articles 121 and 122 take effect, we will not be very much further forward in the way in which Parliament examines treaties.
	I have listened to the Minister's arguments. I hope that the discussion of the new clause has triggered a wider debate on the issue, and I hope that when we have a Conservative Foreign Secretary and Minister in a few weeks, they will contribute to a discussion about how Parliament will oversee the Executive with respect to treaties. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Jurisdiction of the court

'. This Act shall have effect, subject to the making of a declaration by Her Majesty's Government in accordance with Article 124 of the ICC Statute, with the proviso that for a period of seven years after the entry into force of the Statute the United Kingdom does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in Article 8 when such crimes are alleged to have been committed by United Kingdom nationals or on United Kingdom territory.'.--[Mr. Maude.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Francis Maude: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss New clause 7--Ratification: reservations and declarations--
	'The Secretary of State shall not ratify the ICC Statute unless
	(a) a report is laid before Parliament, setting out
	(i) any reservations Her Majesty's Government proposes to make and the reason for those reservations,
	(ii) any declarations Her Majesty's Government proposes to make and the reason for such declarations, and
	(iii) that report is approved by each House of Parliament.'.

Francis Maude: New clause 3 would delay implementation of the Act until the Government exercise the seven-year opt-out which is provided for in article 124 of the Rome statute. This important matter was discussed in Committee. Throughout the deliberations on the Bill, both in the House and in the other place, the Government have singularly failed to answer adequately the Opposition's concerns.
	We have said many times, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said two years ago in response to the Foreign Secretary's original statement on the matter, that we support the principle of setting up the International Criminal Court. Nothing that we say in any way resiles from that. However, there are genuine concerns about the way in which the Bill will be implemented. Its implications must be properly probed and examined. As we said on Second Reading, we expect some changes to the Bill if it is to have our support.
	The seven-year opt-out, which has already been exercised by the French Government, is a means of giving time to see how the court progresses. At the same time, it ensures that members of the armed forces are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Court for the offence of war crimes. Any number of soothing words have issued from the mouths of Ministers to allay the concerns that have been expressed, but none have been convincing. That is why we urge the House to adopt the new clause.
	Our principal concern is the danger to members of the armed forces and the implications for the way they would have to operate--the constraints under which they would feel compelled to operate in circumstances which, as we all know, are already extraordinarily difficult. The Government have not given a satisfactory reason why they will not seek such a seven-year opt-out in the same way as France has. They have not said why they prefer other countries not to do so, or why France is fundamentally different from Britain and why, in their view, members of the British armed services should be subject to a lesser degree of protection than members of the French armed services.
	New clause 7 relates to the declarations that we hope the Government will make on the statute of Rome and the reason for those declarations. It would mean that the Rome statute would not be ratified unless a report were laid before the House setting out those declarations and the reasons for them, any exceptions that the Government proposed to make and the reasons for them, and the approval of each House of Parliament was secured for such a report.
	With the continuing uncertainty in respect of the protection of the armed forces, it is particularly important that Parliament should know what declarations will be made. As we have made clear, France has made such declarations, which seek to protect its armed forces; so has Israel. There is no question of those two Governments being opposed to the court in principle. As one of my hon. Friends said on Second Reading, Israel has been a long-time proponent of the idea of an international criminal court. If such states as Israel and France have such concerns, it is incumbent on the Government to tell us how they will protect our armed forces.
	The concerns that have been expressed on a number of occasions have not been met. Those concerns began to emerge in reports to the newspapers some time before the Bill was introduced in this House, but after it had been introduced in the other place and proceedings there were under way. The reports, which looked like unattributable briefing from senior members of the armed forces, were raised in Committee in the other place. The Minister dealing with the Bill in the House of Lords said that there was nothing to worry about, that no representations had been made and that everyone in the armed services, including all the senior officers, were completely happy about the matter. It turned out that that was not the case.
	I return to the points that we made on Second Reading and subsequently in Committee. Our concerns arose during the deliberations of the Select Committee that was established to consider not the Bill before us, but the Armed Forces Bill. The Committee took evidence from the new Chief of the Defence Staff, who was also asked about this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said:
	"Let me ask you about another piece of prospective legislation, because it is very important for this House to get the best military advice before we legislate. Do you have any concerns about the potential impact of our ratification of the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court on military morale or operational effectiveness?"
	I would add in parenthesis that the point about operational effectiveness is intensely important. The Chief of the Defence Staff gave a significant answer on which we should reflect carefully before we allow the Bill to proceed to its final stages:
	"I do know a bit about this Bill, and I think that we need to be very careful indeed that when the Bill is taken through Parliament, we do not put ourselves in a situation where a junior person carrying out orders which he believes to be entirely proper can subsequently find himself in front of the International Criminal Court. So far, I have been told that this is unlikely to happen, because the national court would have the opportunity to investigate the case if it were pointed in that direction by the ICC."
	My hon. Friend went on to ask the Chief of the Defence Staff the following question:
	"Is it good enough to hear that it is 'unlikely to happen', or would you prefer to have a more concrete exemption or derogation or protection in law?"
	In response, Admiral--

Edward Garnier: Admirable.

Francis Maude: As my hon. and learned Friend says, he is also admirable. Admiral Boyce replied:
	"I cannot say that 'unlikely' fills me with huge confidence. I would be much happier with a completely unequivocal statement, but I guess that is probably the best I will get."
	Clearly, the new Chief of the Defence Staff has got the measure of this Government pretty quickly, if he realises that an equivocal statement is the best that he is likely to get.
	The men and women in the armed services, who come under the leadership of the Chief of the Defence staff--and the political leadership of Ministers in Her Majesty's Government--are entitled to something better than an equivocal statement. They are entitled to some real reassurance. When we probed the matter on Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary did his best to be reassuring, but I regret to say that he failed to allay our concerns. He could say only that it would not happen in practice. He would not say that members of the armed forces could not in practice find themselves pursued by the International Criminal Court, perhaps on the basis of a political vendetta by other countries that have grudges to settle. He could not say that it was impossible for that to happen.
	I asked the Foreign Secretary why he could not accept the sort of proposals that we were putting forward if he was as confident as he was encouraging us to be and knew that our concerns were unrealistic. We seek only to provide the protection in absolutely concrete terms, in statutory form. That could be achieved not only through the opt-out provision, which would enable us to see how the International Criminal Court works in its important stages, but also by the introduction of subsequent amendments that we have tabled in relation to enabling the Secretary of State to exercise discretion. All those proposals would provide reassurance and protection for members of the armed services. I consider it a matter of regret that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have been unwilling to show any flexibility whatever on the matter.

Robin Cook: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the statement that it would not happen in practice was not mine. I quoted the words to correct him, as he had quoted Geoffrey Robertson QC as saying that there was a theoretical possibility. I reminded him that it was my hon. Friend who went on to say that it would not happen in practice. In my speech, I said that British service personnel would never be prosecuted, as we could pursue any bona fide allegation ourselves. There is no prospect of the sort of mischievous prosecution by a malign state to which he referred, because of the pre-trial procedure. I remind him of the words of the Opposition spokesperson in the House of Lords, Lord Kingsland, who said:
	"It is . . . a great achievement to have put in place a pre-trial inquiry to wash out of the system any bogus allegations."
	It is time that the Opposition gave up arousing--in their own way, mischievous--fears about an outcome that will never happen.

Francis Maude: Two points arise from those comments. First, it is extremely patronising of the Foreign Secretary to speak in that way about the concerns expressed by the Chief of the Defence Staff--[Interruption.] He says that we are raising unjustified fears, but we did not speak to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who came to his own conclusions about his concerns about the armed forces, for which he has to provide the military leadership. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Chief of the Defence Staff is so weak and vulnerable that he will be taken in by scurrilous remarks made by the Opposition, he should bear it in mind that he is referring to a serious leader who must make his own judgments. The judgment that the Chief of the Defence Staff has made is that he is not satisfied with what the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues are saying. That is what he said when he was asked about the matter in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Chief of the Defence Staff said no such thing; neither could he possibly have said anything other than what I said on Second Reading, because the remarks with which the right hon. Gentleman is regaling the House at length--I think that he is doing so for the second time--were made before Second Reading and before I gave an unequivocal assurance.

Francis Maude: I made it clear at the outset that the exchange from which I have quoted extensively occurred while the Bill was being considered in the other place. The concerns began to arise while the Bill was emerging from the other place and was in transit to this House. We were then able to raise the matter when the Bill was considered on Second Reading. It is remarkable that the reassurance that the Chief of Defence Staff needs has been provided by comments made by the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber. We were told that no concerns at all were expressed by senior members of the military or of the naval staff, but it turned out that that was not the case. At the time when the assurances were first made by Baroness Scotland in the other place, the Chief of the Defence Staff had already expressed the concerns in a House of Commons Select Committee, but the proceedings had not been reported at that stage.
	My second point in response to the Foreign Secretary is that it is precisely allegations that are not well founded or based on bona fide cases about which we are concerned. Of course, we hope that a proper system of pre-trial review will weed out vexatious claims, but he cannot say with absolute confidence that it is impossible that any member of the British armed forces will ever find himself subject to the international jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because the case will have been dealt with in international courts.

John Battle: He will be charged by the national courts first.

Francis Maude: I am not concerned about genuine cases, and I fully accept the Minister of State's remarks in that respect. Of course, the person would be charged by the national courts first in all such cases, but I am anxious about cases in which the national prosecuting authorities--whether military or civil--have already investigated a case and decided that no proper proceedings can be brought, but in which politically motivated proceedings--

Robin Cook: indicated dissent

Francis Maude: The Foreign Secretary shakes his head and says that everything is fine, but it is not because that is not the end of the matter. It remains possible. Of course, if the matter has been adjudicated in the national courts, that is the end of it, but if the authorities have considered it and decided not to proceed in the national courts, it is still open to the ICC, as I understand it, to bring proceedings.
	If the Foreign Secretary is so confident that it is completely impossible for those circumstances to arise, let him accept our amendments. They provide for a discretion to be exercised so that there is a watertight cut-out which enables Ministers who are confident that a case is completely vexatious to ensure that such a warrant is not executed against a member of the British armed forces. If he is so confident that the current system allows for that, let him provide for it in the Bill. Members of the armed forces are likely to place a great deal more reliance on something that is definitively enacted in statute than on his assurances.

Des Browne: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how his proposed new clause would achieve the level of reassurance for our armed forces that he seeks to give them? I do not support it. Any reservation made in terms of article 124 would relate only to crimes under article 8. Our soldiers will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the court under articles 5 and 6. There is no mechanism for reserving our position in relation to the jurisdiction there. The Foreign Secretary cannot therefore use any word other than "unlikely" himself when he gives the reassurance, even if the amendment is passed.

Francis Maude: The main reason for new clause 3, which would provide for the seven-year opt-out, is that we think that it the best way of providing protection--

Des Browne: It is not watertight.

Francis Maude: It is watertight in terms of protection for our armed forces. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mutters from a sedentary position--

Des Browne: I will clarify the intervention. The ICC will still exercise jurisdiction over our nationals or in respect of crimes committed on our territory in relation to articles 6 and 7. There may be allegations that such crimes have been committed by members of our armed forces. Any reservations under article 124 will not refer to them, so we will still have to rely on the bona fides of the prosecution and the court to give our armed forces the protection that they need. It is better that we are in there, ensuring that that happens from the outset, than that we have half a solution.

Francis Maude: The Government of France sought protection because they are as concerned as we are about the jeopardy in which their armed forces may be placed by the treaty as it stands. Their declaration under the treaty is:
	"The French Republic declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory."
	They may have used a completely worthless form of words, but clearly the French Government concluded that a declaration along those lines would give their armed forces the protection that they require. It is odd that the British Government should be so relaxed about this that they are not concerned to give British armed forces the same protection.

Mark Hendrick: If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to get immunity for British military personnel and, to follow that logic, every other signatory to the treaty of Rome in a similar position, would it not be the case that the ICC could not prosecute military personnel per se? Indeed, none of the crimes listed under article 8 could be brought to prosecution by the ICC.

Francis Maude: The Foreign Secretary is trying to assure the House that there is no question of British armed service men ever being subject to the ICC in any event. All I am trying to do is to give legal effect through the statute to the Foreign Secretary's solemn declarations made in this House. If he is prepared to be so definitive about it here, why is he not prepared to provide an equally definitive protection to the armed forces in the statute?

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman make absolutely clear whether his position is that the armed forces in general should be exempt from provisions in this statute?

Francis Maude: I believe that the British armed forces should be exempt.

Jeremy Corbyn: Why?

Francis Maude: In the absence of genuine immunity, the armed forces will find their military efficiency, morale and ability to be operationally effective seriously inhibited. There will always be the anxiety that they will be second-guessed subsequently by those who are not in a military environment and do not understand the pressures under which they have been working. Those are precisely the concerns expressed by a number of senior military officers. In the heat of battle with battlefield decisions to be made, officers try to the best of their ability to interpret and give effect to the rules of engagement under which they are operating. Just the thought of any risk of subsequent second-guessing may inhibit, and affect adversely, their military effectiveness. The result of damaging military effectiveness is lives put in danger. We think that that matters.

Robin Cook: Since the right hon. Gentleman appears to be labouring under a misunderstanding, may I assure him that there is nothing in the Bill that creates an offence that does not already exist in international law and to which British service personnel are not already liable and committed? It is fully reflected in their training. There is no evidence that that has reduced their operational capability. May I remind him that he was part of a Government who set up the International Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia?

Francis Maude: I was not.

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman says that he was not, but we can take it that he was at least complicit, by his membership card, in the actions of that Government. They set up the war crimes tribunal in the full knowledge that there were many thousands of British personnel in the former Yugoslavia. They, rightly, made no exemption for British personnel. Can he cite a single case where the operational effectiveness of British personnel in the former Yugoslavia was impeded by the existence of that tribunal?

Francis Maude: As I have said on several occasions, if the Opposition had random, fanciful anxieties, the Foreign Secretary would be entitled to dismiss them airily and carry on regardless. However, those anxieties are not simply ours; the most senior member of the British armed forces, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said that he was genuinely worried that the Bill as it is currently drafted would impede military effectiveness.
	Perhaps the Foreign Secretary wishes to ride roughshod over such anxieties, but they are genuine. One does not need to be absolutely sure that a risk will be realised; the possibility should be enough to make a responsible Government and Parliament think twice before enacting such a Bill. We have steadily proposed changes as the Bill has progressed. We cannot support the measure unless some serious changes are made.

Jeremy Corbyn: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Conservative party believes that the British armed forces should not be covered by the Bill. How would he respond if, for example, the Indonesian Government said that they were happy to sign up to the statute that establishes the International Criminal Court, but that it should not cover the Indonesian armed forces? That would be nonsensical. If we believe in international jurisdiction, it should cover everybody on everything.

Francis Maude: I am a Member of this Parliament. We have a specific responsibility for members of the British armed forces. We ask them to risk their lives, sometimes in horrific circumstances, fighting for their country. We are the Parliament of that country, and it is therefore our task to voice genuine anxieties about our armed forces' safety, and their ability to operate effectively and discharge the heavy burdens that we place upon them from time to time. I am obliged to express those anxieties, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not feel able to pick them up.

Several hon. Members: rose--

Francis Maude: There are other groups of amendments and we are subject to a stringent programme motion of three hours. I therefore wish to proceed with my speech.
	Although the treaty was negotiated some time ago, the Bill was introduced extremely late. It is now being bounced through on a strict guillotine so that the Foreign Secretary can try to add a little lustre to his chipped and damaged ethical foreign policy.
	The Foreign Secretary is trying to force through a Bill that genuinely places in jeopardy the military effectiveness of the British armed forces, so that he can continue his grandstanding and try to repair his discredited ethical foreign policy. The House should not accept that, and I therefore ask hon. Members to support the new clause.

Mike Gapes: I shall be brief. I wanted to intervene in the speech of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), but that was not possible. I shall therefore say a few words about the new clause.
	The proposal represents a classic Conservative party position: the opt-out. The new clause refers to seven years; it does not state: "for the duration of the next Parliament". Perhaps it means, "for the duration of two Parliaments". However, the right hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag; the new clause represents not an opt-out for seven years, but opposition to the principle of subjecting the British Army to the Bill. That reflects the Conservative party position on the euro. The Opposition claim that they are doing something for a limited period, but only because they know that some of their colleagues would disagree if they stated that an opt-out was indefinite. They therefore adopt a compromise position of claiming that their proposal would operate for a limited period--seven years in the case that we are considering. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) if he wants to clarify matters.

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman asks why the new clause specifies seven years. The answer is simple: the statute of Rome provides for that.

Mike Gapes: The period could be longer. The new clause could state, "seven years or more".

Francis Maude: The statute of Rome provides for seven years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mike Gapes: I am happy to give way again if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to respond. He does not wish to do that.
	I shall draw attention to another matter. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of the limited time that is available, I suggest that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) carry on with his speech.

Mike Gapes: As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, if we accept the new clauses, the British forces would be sending a very interesting message to other countries. If it is good enough for the International Criminal Court to be empowered to act against the armed forces of countries that perhaps do not maintain the scrupulous standards and have the generally exemplary record of our own armed forces, why is it not good enough for those provisions to apply to the British Army when it is serving with the United Nations in Bosnia, doing such an excellent job in Kosovo or protecting human rights and defending democracy in Sierra Leone?
	Why should not the sanctions of the International Criminal Court apply to our armed forces, who are not accused of committing war crimes, massacres or human rights abuses--all of which are accusations that have been made against the armed forces of other countries that will be ratifying the International Criminal Court statute?
	New clause 3 is a Conservative wrecking amendment. It is designed to wreck the Bill. We had it from the mouth of the right hon. Member for Horsham that Conservative Members' real position is to vote against, or at least not to support this International Criminal Court legislation. The public, the abused non-governmental organisations, and everyone in Churches, pressure groups, campaigns and schools can draw their own conclusions about Conservative Members' attitude to human rights, democracy and international law.

Robert Maclennan: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I very much disliked the implication of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that the Conservative party is the only party in the House that is concerned about the position of our armed services, and that in supporting the Bill we are in some way in dereliction of our obligation. That is a total defiance of sense and is at odds with the Bill's underlying purposes, one of which is the protection of our own troops from the violation of the laws of war by the creation of an effective system that eventually will be capable of bringing to justice those who deny that system.
	In this century, our troops have been the victims of the defiance of the laws of war not in their tens or hundreds, but in their hundreds of thousands. In the first world war, how many of our people were gassed in defiance of the laws of war? How ineffective have we been in erecting a system of international justice to bring the perpetrators of such atrocities to justice? The reality is that this legislation is a very small step in effectively implementing what the Foreign Secretary has rightly described as existing international public law in relation to the laws of war.
	The distortion and inflation of Admiral Sir Michael Boyce's comments--

Francis Maude: rose--

Robert Maclennan: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman in the middle of a sentence. I would like to finish making the point before he replies to it.
	Admiral Sir Michael Boyce was giving evidence on an entirely different matter when he made an incidental remark. I have no reason to believe that anything that he said expressed the view that the Bill should not be given effect. He certainly did not say so in terms.

Francis Maude: rose--

Robert Maclennan: Nor did he express the view that the statute of Rome was against the interests of our troops.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have two right hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time. I think that I can ask the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to wait until the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has signified that he is giving way.

Robert Maclennan: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now happily give way.

Francis Maude: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He accused me of having distorted the comments of the Chief of the Defence Staff, but I quoted the Chief of the Defence Staff absolutely verbatim. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that someone who occupies such a position is prone to making casual, off-the-cuff remarks about a matter of such gravity, he has a much lower opinion of him than I do.

Robert Maclennan: I most certainly did not suggest that, because we have heard those words and read them on a number of occasions. They have been repeated ad nauseam on the Floor of the House and in Committee, but they do not sustain the weight or the interpretation that has been attached to them. That is the point that I wanted to make. The Conservative spokesman is ignoring the whole purpose and point of the Bill and that should not go unchallenged. It is very much in the interests of our armed services that the rule of international law and the extension of the effectiveness of sanctions against abuses of the law are properly in place and that we can bring to justice the perpetrators of the crimes from which our armed forces have suffered over the past century and before. I commend the Government's efforts in doing so.

Des Browne: I rise to oppose the amendments, if not in the same style, at least with the same quality of indignation that was expressed by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). The suggestion that the only hon. Members who can speak effectively on behalf of the safety and security of our armed forces are the few Conservative Members who have spoken today is an untruth that has to be put in its place. Looking at the amendments and the intellectual discipline that lies behind them, I suspect that they are nothing more than a lame excuse for an opportunity to vote against the Bill.

Eric Forth: What is wrong with that?

Des Browne: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what is wrong with that. The amendments are a lame excuse for an opportunity to vote against the legislation; they are not good reasons to do so.
	My first point was also made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and concerns the reliance that we place on the rule of law in relation to war for the protection of not only our armed forces, but our civilian population in a time of conflict. I made that point in Committee and it has never been addressed by anyone who has spoken in favour of amendments or in opposition to the Bill from the point of view that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) or anyone else.
	What message do we give other countries if we start to pick and choose when our soldiers will be subject to the rule of law in relation to war? What protection do we give our armed forces in the long term if we say to them that we are going into war in a situation where those with whom we are in conflict know that we have excused our armed forces from being subject to the jurisdiction of the court that will enforce these laws? If that cannot be answered other than by saying, "I am addressing this subject as a Member of the British Parliament", it does not stand examination.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that he cannot have his cake and eat it. The amendment would simply take into account article 124 and allow the armed forces to be exempt for seven years from article 8, which is the area of greatest concern to the armed forces and relates to a court over which we have precious little control, unlike the international tribunal over Yugoslavia, and to the nominations of the prosecutor and the judges. Britain has far less influence over how article 8 will be applied. For seven years, our armed forces will be able to see how the International Criminal Court works in respect of our armed forces. If, after seven years, we are content with the justice meted out by the British courts--as he rightly points out, British soldiers are subject to all the laws that the statute implements--we will be in a position to decide how the ICC is working. That is the purpose of the protection that we should be giving our armed forces.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention which neatly brings me to my second point. I shall return to the nature of the reservation in article 124 and whether it can give our armed forces the comfort that the Opposition pretend that it can. That will be my third point. If we choose to take that reservation, what is sauce for the goose will be sauce for the gander, and every other country that has signed up to the statute--even some of those who were dismissed by the Opposition in Committee as being irrelevant to important international decisions because of their size, population or history--should be able to do the same thing. What sort of institution would we have if every nation exercised a seven-year opt-out for their armed forces, their nationals and crimes committed on their territory by other nationals? How would we then find out over seven years how the court dealt with crimes committed under article 8, when there would have been none for it to deal with? If every country exercised a reservation, as they would be entitled to do if we gave them the lead, there would be no seven-year history to rely on.
	Why should we in the UK have the arrogance to say that the court should practise on other countries' nationals while we watch to see whether the standard of justice is good enough for ours? What sort of message is that for a civilised country to send?

Nicholas Lyell: We will hand over the selection of the prosecutor and judges of the International Criminal Court to all the nations that sign up, regardless of their size and weight. Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to make such a change in relation to the United Nations, so that power was handed over to the General Assembly without the limitations of the Security Council? Does he understand the comparison?

Des Browne: That is not a true analogy. The statute has been agreed by sovereign nations that discussed and negotiated a draft statute in a concentrated fashion against a set of international standards that they all accepted. They arrived at the statute in that fashion and, as one of the countries that put considerable effort into the eventual shape of the statute, we have agreed to ratify it. Importantly, we also agreed to treat the statute with the respect that it deserves. We undertook to put our faith in it and to work to ensure that the ICC can deliver what we hope it will deliver for peace in the world and the protection of humanity.
	At this stage, we cannot say, in effect, to the ICC, "Go away and practise on all the wee countries and when you have got it right and are up to a standard that we think is appropriate, then we will let our people be subject to its jurisdiction." We cannot do that.

Crispin Blunt: Yes, we can.

Des Browne: We can if we want to give up our leadership role. If we want to retain that role and imbue the court with the standards that have been generated by our system of justice--of which we are all rightly proud--we have to play an active role from the outset and have the confidence to make our citizens subject to its jurisdiction.

Crispin Blunt: Which other nation--other than France, which has taken this exemption--of those that will probably ratify the treaty, has the same commitment of its soldiers around the world as a contribution to international security as we have? Which other country has had a soldier die on active service in every single year since the second world war, other than the United Kingdom?

Des Browne: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) earlier said, with heavy irony, that I know everything, but I do not know the answer to that question. There is no point in my pretending that I do or giving the hon. Gentleman some smart reply, but that is not the point. We are not talking about justice by weighted majority. Opposition Members' arguments seem to depend on the size of a country's armed forces, or whether the armed forces involved are British. The contribution of sovereign nations to international justice must not be judged according to the number of citizens that they have or according to the size of their standing armies. Their contribution must be judged according to principles of decency, law and justice.
	Britain has given many of those principles to the world. Arguments about the ICC should be tested against those principles, not against some pretended self-interest.

Gerald Howarth: It is the national interest.

Des Browne: With respect, it is not the national interest. The Opposition are using the argument as an excuse to vote against the Bill. The new clause purports to offer a principled reason for opposition to the measure, but no real principle is at stake. The Opposition contribution to debate on this Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee, has been a total pretence. They have pretended that, in principle, they are in favour of it, but all the time they have been constructing an excuse to vote against it at this stage in its progress. The truth behind that pretence is now visible.

Crispin Blunt: The Government should call our bluff.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the new clause is a bluff. It will be called.

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Opposition are simply looking for a reason to vote against the Bill. That is not the case: we are concerned with the Bill as it stands. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) noted that Britain, like the United States and France, is one of the few countries that consistently deploys troops abroad. Does the hon. Gentleman consider it unprincipled of France to want protection for its armed forces when they are deployed internationally? Does he consider President Clinton unprincipled because, until the last moment, he refused to sign the statute in its current form--and then recommended that his successor did not ratify the statute?

Des Browne: I am not privy to the motivations of other countries or their leaders. I am not prepared to speculate, but I have been present through every minute of parliamentary deliberation on this Bill, on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The right hon. Member for Horsham cannot say as much. I have been present to hear the arguments and to test them.

Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend has been able to read the debates.

Des Browne: The question is not whether the right hon. Gentleman can read the arguments: sometimes it is more important to see the expressions on people's faces, and their body language, when they speak. I have been present at all the debates, and I have come to a view on that informed basis. I have not had the opportunity to spend the same amount of time with President Clinton or the French Government. If I had had that opportunity, I would have been able to reach an informed view on the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I therefore do not accept his invitation to speculate.
	However, I suspect that the French know how much protection the reservation under article 124 will give their armed forces. I also suspect that the right hon. Member for Horsham did not know that when he first moved the new clause at the Dispatch Box, because it had to be pointed out to him that it applies only to article 8--not to crimes alleged to have been committed in contravention of articles 6 or 7.
	Therefore, even if the right hon. Gentleman were to succeed in getting the new clause accepted, how could he tell our armed forces that they would never, over the seven-year period, be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, or to the possibility of such jurisdiction? It is for the very reason that our armed forces might be subject to ICC jurisdiction that the whole of the court's jurisdiction should apply to Britain. In that way, we can ensure that the jurisdiction develops in the way that we want it to, in accordance with the standards that I described earlier.
	For all those reasons, which I think are principled and logical, I oppose the new clause. Fundamentally, however, I oppose it to expose the reality behind it. The new clause is simply an excuse for Conservative Members to vote against the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: I strongly support the case so ably made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) in moving the new clause. It is vital, for a number of reasons.
	Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I was present at most of the Committee's sittings. As the Minister said, we had a constructive debate. The Minister was good enough to acknowledge that the issues raised by the Opposition were serious and that we had not been frivolous or wasted time. If we repeat some of the arguments that were advanced in Committee, it is only so that the House more widely should recognise that we had serious and responsible debates in Committee.
	We are not talking about an ad-hoc tribunal such as that for Yugoslavia. The Bill will set up a supranational court for all time--that is what is so important. Protections have been built in, but there will be severe limitations on the influence that the United Kingdom can bring to bear over the passage of time. It is therefore right and proper for the House of Commons to consider most carefully the Bill's implications. Indeed, it would be a denial of our duty to the people of this country not to do so.
	The new clause seeks to give the Government--the next Conservative Government on 8 June, and the one after that--time to see how the court will evolve, given all the implications that it will have for our armed forces. The court will not be cast in stone for all time but evolve, and we will have very little influence over that evolution. We have already discussed at some length how the House will have very little influence over the decisions made by the Government in representing the British case as to how the court develops.
	There are three issues at stake and three reasons why I believe that the new clause should be accepted. First, it is the primary responsibility of the House to ensure that we give every possible protection to Her Majesty's armed forces. They are charged with the responsibility, by this House--and, more directly, by the Government of the day--to carry out the wishes of the House and the Government in defending our national interests abroad and defending our territory at home. Members of our armed forces join up with the very real prospect that they may be called upon to lay down their lives for their country--not something that those of us who stand successfully for re-election on 7 June will be called upon to do.
	My right hon. Friend drew attention to the remarks of the Chief of the Defence Staff. I have met him only once, but I believe him to be an extremely able man. I would prefer to rely on his judgment, I am afraid, than that of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). Sir Michael Boyce has served with distinction in our armed forces. He understands what our armed forces are called upon to do, and he understands the implications. Ultimately, it will be his responsibility to carry out the wishes of the Government of the day. Therefore, it seems better to rely on his words than on those of probably any Member of the House.
	I do not accuse the Government of indifference to the consequences for our armed forces of the passage of the Bill. However, as the Member for Aldershot--the home of the British Army--I think that the Government have not given full consideration to them. I do not refer to the way that the court would handle an accusation that members of Her Majesty's armed forces had contravened the articles of the statute of Rome, but to the evolution of the court--how things might occur in future and how our armed forces might be subject to such events.
	Although there are members of the armed services in the constituency of every right hon. and hon. Member, and we all owe them a duty, I believe that the Conservative party has always been much more in tune with the concerns and needs of the armed forces. Labour Members may disagree, but that is my view.
	My second point is that, in Committee, the Minister made great play of the fact that our armed forces would never be called on to face charges under the legislation. As the Foreign Secretary reminded us earlier, on Second Reading he said:
	"British service personnel will never be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court because any bona fide allegation will be pursued by the British authorities."--[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 222.] That, in essence, is the Government's case.

Robin Cook: indicated assent

Gerald Howarth: The Foreign Secretary nods in agreement.
	However, the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, which I want to emphasise to the Foreign Secretary, is that the Government are in no position to make that unequivocal guarantee. The Government rely on the principle of complementarity--a ghastly word that has been introduced specifically for this statute and its incorporation in United Kingdom law. That means that the United Kingdom will first hear any allegation made against a member of Her Majesty's forces. However, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister know that, under article 17 of the Rome statute, headed "Issues of admissibility", a case would be inadmissible where
	"The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned".
	But a caveat follows:
	"unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute".
	The Foreign Secretary cannot tell us today that, in 10 or 15 years, the ICC may not take a contrary view. For example, what would happen if the United Kingdom decided that a military operation involving substantial loss of civilian life was none the less not a war crime under the measure, but the ICC took a different view? I speculate, but I am entitled to do so. If we decided not to prosecute in such a case, the court could say that, although the United Kingdom was unwilling to prosecute, the military operation was excessive and did not justify the resulting loss of civilian life. The people involved--possibly even our Prime Minister--could be brought before the court.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman and I took part in some interesting debates in Committee. He raises an important point of principle in respect of the establishment of an international criminal court of any description, never mind the one that we are discussing. Against the standard that he sets, we cannot give our armed forces an unequivocal guarantee that they will not be brought before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which exercises a jurisdiction that is not complementary to but supersedes that of our domestic courts. Should we therefore withdraw our forces from their peacekeeping work in the former Yugoslavia?

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times, and I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who has comprehensively demolished his argument on that score. That court was an ad-hoc tribunal, but the International Criminal Court will not be. It will be a major international institution, for all time to come. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) pointed out to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun the difference between the constitutions of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, and between the influence that the United Kingdom has in the United Nations and its lack of influence in the International Criminal Court.

Des Browne: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that if any of our forces came before the ICTY, we would immediately withdraw our support for it? Is the difference between an ad-hoc tribunal and an established court simply that we can withdraw our support from an ad-hoc tribunal the moment that a UK national or member of the British armed forces comes before it? Is our support for international justice conditional on its not applying to us?

Gerald Howarth: The ICTY was set up during the conflict and at the end of the conflict, British troops obviously had not infringed. We are trying to anticipate scenarios where our troops could stand accused of having committed war crimes that were not considered, either by the Government of the United Kingdom or by our courts, to be war crimes.
	The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point. He said that there was no guarantee that we could give our troops in respect of the ICTY. I repeat that the Foreign Secretary said:
	"British service personnel will never be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court".--[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 222.]
	Does the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun disagree with the Foreign Secretary?

Des Browne: indicated dissent

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman does not disagree with his right hon. Friend, but we are saying that the Foreign Secretary is in no position to give that guarantee, which he has sought to wave in front of Admiral Sir Michael Boyce and the rest of our armed forces.

Crispin Blunt: The point that my hon. Friend is making was illustrated by the Solicitor-General's promise in Committee concerning the fact that the prosecutor of the ICTY decided that the bombing of the television station did not amount to a crime, as far as the Prime Minister was concerned, and that he should not be brought to justice in front of The Hague tribunal. That was a decision of the prosecutor--a prosecutor over whom we had much greater influence and control than we shall have over the prosecutor--

Robin Cook: Withdraw.

Crispin Blunt: I heard the Foreign Secretary say, "Withdraw."

Robin Cook: rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary cannot intervene on an intervention, even though he may, like me, have begun to wonder whether it was a speech.

Crispin Blunt: I shall deal with the point if you will let me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary was saying, "Withdraw." Voting for the prosecutor in the International Criminal Court is by majority, and the United Kingdom and other states could be outvoted. It is clear that we have less influence over the selection of the prosecutor for the ICC than we did over that of the prosecutor in The Hague. That is the simple point that is being made, and so--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions have been getting longer and longer, and it would be better if hon. Members kept perorations out of them.

Gerald Howarth: The exchanges illustrate the nonsense of the Government's position in having tried to rush this measure through and force us into a programme motion tonight. This is a very serious issue, which affects our country, and particularly our armed forces. It is a tragedy that the Government have sought to treat the matter in this way.
	I said that I had three points to raise, and I have raised two. The first concerned our armed forces, and the second my belief that the complementarity argument was not a sufficient safeguard for our troops. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham mentioned, the French have reservations. I am not known for siding naturally with the French, but I can tell the Foreign Secretary that I love going on holiday to France, and that I have a French brother-in-law and a French motor car. I do not think that I can be accused of xenophobia.
	Not only have the French entered reservations; so has the United States of America. I do not want to labour the point because I think that most members of the Standing Committee and most Members of the House are well aware that it was not until the dying hours of his somewhat discredited term of office that President Clinton signed the treaty and left the Senate to ratify the statute. It is clear that the Bush Administration are wholly hostile to ratification.

Francis Maude: Does my hon. Friend recollect that President Clinton not only signed the statute at the very last moment, but specifically said when doing so that it was only to preserve America's negotiating position and recommended that his successor should not ratify it?

Gerald Howarth: That is a most telling point and a powerful reason why the House should accept the new clause.
	I think that I heard the Foreign Secretary on "Today" earlier this week or last week say that the United States was our closest ally. [Interruption.] I think that he is saying "Hear, hear", so he accepts that. If our closest ally has such reservations about the International Criminal Court, why do the Government want to rush headlong into ratifying the statute, failing to take advantage of the breathing space afforded by article 124?

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way because I want to conclude.
	I remind the House that on 29 November last year, a group of very senior American public figures sent a note to the majority whip in the US House of Representatives expressing strong support for the American Servicemembers' Protection Act 2000, which was introduced to protect the sovereignty of the United States in respect of the International Criminal Court. The letter said:
	"War crimes and other human rights violations have long been subject to criminal penalties under U.S. law, and the United States has a far better record of enforcing its laws against human rights violations than some of the countries that support the ICC."
	That letter was signed by a cast of senior people who were involved at the highest level of government in the most recent conflicts in which the United States and the United Kingdom have taken part: Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State; Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense; Henry Kissenger, former Secretary of State; Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; James Baker, former Secretary of State.
	Those men are hugely powerful, and they are protecting their armed forces. We should protect ours. One way in which the Government could do so, which would not undermine the Bill or the Government's position in respect of the International Criminal Court, would be to accept the new clause, thereby allowing us to derogate for seven years and buying ourselves some time while we see how the court develops.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief because we are nearing the end of the debate.
	I have a feeling that if the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) had been a Member of this House during the summer of 1945, he would have made exactly the same speech about why we should not ratify the United Nations charter, as, no doubt, he would have about the League of Nations covenant, the International Labour Organisation declaration and any international treaty there ever was.
	We seem to be losing sight of the reality that the Bill has come about because of the revulsion of many people around the world at abuses of human rights and the unbridled power of dictatorships. They see the need to bring such dictators to heel if they are no longer to be the victims of the arbitrary power that is often held by military dictators and regimes.
	I remember--I am sure that many hon. Members do--the trenchant defence of General Pinochet that was mounted by the hon. Member for Aldershot and some of his friends. They continue to do that but at no stage have they ever appeared to notice that thousands of people died in Chile at the hands of Pinochet and many others. Pinochet could not be brought to court under this process, because it is not retrospective. However, it will ensure that any country that signs up to the treaty will--yes--expose itself to possible prosecutions under it but, in doing so, it will set an example, a standard and a norm. That is why I strongly oppose the new clauses.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) said, if we believe that every other country should sign up to the treaty and possibly put all their institutions before an international court, we should be prepared to do exactly the same. If Argentina, which has signed and ratified the treaty, has not asked for an exemption for its armed forces--and, my God, Argentine armed forces committed many human rights violations at the time of Operation Condor--what have we got to be afraid of? We should sign up to the treaty in its entirety.

Gerald Howarth: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants Senator Pinochet to appear before the International Criminal Court, but does he want the President of China to appear before it too?

Jeremy Corbyn: Although the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee and I was not, I have pointed out to him on many occasions that it is not retrospective legislation. If any country that signs up to the treaty is accused of violations of human rights or matters that would bring it within the purview of the International Criminal Court, it should be brought within its purview. That is the basis of the process.
	The idea that we should ask for an exemption for our armed forces is ridiculous. If we ask for that exemption, who are we to oppose anyone else's exemption? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) pointed out--many of us have--the consequences of our asking for an exemption. What would happen if Indonesia said that it was happy to sign the treaty, but would not, at any stage, allow the Indonesian armed forces--many of us have seen what they are capable of in East Timor and other places--to be exposed to any prosecution under the law? That would be a joke, and everyone would know it.
	It is important that all institutions are covered by the court, but we should remember that many of the worst violations of human rights are not carried out by statutory armed forces but by militia forces acting more or less on behalf of the armed forces. Let us consider what happened in East Timor, and is now happening in Aceh and West Papua in Indonesia, or events in Colombia. There are many other examples of armies and regimes using militia forces to carry out the most appalling violations of human rights.
	The House has an opportunity today to allow the Bill to proceed. I regret the exemptions that are included in the Bill and that we shall not have time to debate them. I hope that, in another Parliament, we shall be able to return to the issue and deal with those exemptions, because I do not believe that the power of discretion that is held by the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary is necessarily within the spirit of the Bill's origins.

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman referred to Indonesia, but does he not understand the position that Britain is in? Britain is one of the three western countries that consistently and properly deploy their troops abroad in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. The other two are France and America, and Socialist Prime Minister Jospin and the former Democrat President Clinton have both seen grave dangers in subjecting their armed forces, which are involved in such operations, to the jurisdiction of the court. Why does he think that Britain's armed forces should uniquely in this group of three internationally oriented sets of armed forces be put in jeopardy in this way?

Jeremy Corbyn: If we believe in the rule of law, in international conventions and in the power of a democracy to control its armed forces, what have we got to be afraid of? We should sign up to the treaty in its entirety.
	It is obviously true that British armed forces are involved in various parts of the world. I sometimes wish that they were not. They are not always under the control of the United Nations; sometimes they are under NATO command. We are not the only country to deploy forces elsewhere. India, Ireland, Sweden and Canada do the same. Many not so large countries have often made significant contributions to the work of the UN. I hear no arguments from them that their armed forces should be exempt. We should reject the Opposition's isolationist arguments and the new clause. We need to put the Bill on the statute book and return to it so that it can be improved.

John Battle: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was gracious enough to suggest that we had an important and serious debate on these matters in Committee. That is also true of today's debate. New clause 3 is bit of a misnomer--it is actually a retread of a new clause that was discussed in Committee. Nevertheless, the debate has been rigorous, with good and telling contributions not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
	The purpose of the new clause is to bind the Government to the opt-out for war crimes under article 124 of the Rome statute. It is a delaying measure. The more I listened to the debate, the more convinced I became that the Conservatives are not behind the Bill's principles. Contrary to their arguments, we have every reason to be bound by the provisions of article 8 of the ICC statute. The crimes set out in that article are already crimes in international law. That message has not gone home. Many were incorporated into domestic law by previous Conservative Administrations under the Acts to implement the Geneva conventions. Why do they want to tear them up? I was slightly surprised by the tone and direction of the debate.
	Our armed forces already abide by those rules, against which their rules of engagement are drawn up and their conduct is judged. They are the rules by which they operate and, I believe, by which they excel in the practice of their duties. British troops serving in Bosnia or Kosovo are subject to international jurisdiction, which investigates allegations of the same crimes. The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia is a good example to consider. The international jurisdiction has not hampered its operations, as some hon. Members suggested. We need to be more positive and say that without this measure, our armed forces will be hampered. We are providing positive protection to give them full and proper back-up. We are not undermining them, but strengthening the protection of our service personnel against others who will not abide by international law.
	It is critical that we reject the new clause. It is also important to demonstrate leadership and stand up for the rule of law around the world. This country and its armed forces have been doing that on a daily basis for years. We should support them.

Crispin Blunt: Perhaps the Minister could explain why the French have made at least eight definitional declarations about what article 8 means in their declarations on signing the treaty.

John Battle: I am happy to discuss France. The hon. Gentleman has followed our debates in detail and I am sure that he is aware that article 8 crimes are drawn from the first additional protocol of the Geneva conventions. Almost alone among NATO members, France has not signed that protocol. I suspect that its caution can be ascribed to that fact. However, we have signed and ratified the protocol. Indeed, that was done by the previous Administration. If they signed us up to the Geneva conventions, which are implemented in international law, there is no reason why we should not move forward and implement the ICC statute.
	I told the House that if we exercise the opt-out, we will send the most appalling signal to those countries that we want to encourage to build the international institution and ensure that it is properly supported. On the Rome statute, Lord Kingsland said:
	"There is, however, one immense drawback . . . The drawback is that there is a seven year prohibition on the instigation of any prosecution for war crimes."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 626.]
	Even the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson in another place argued and agreed that there should not be an opt-out. I am surprised that the Opposition spokesperson in this place does not agree with what has been going on down the Corridor in the House of Lords.
	The ICC poses no threat to our armed forces. It will have no impact on their rules of engagement. It will make no change to the fundamental laws of war under which our armed forces already operate, and which are part of the daily training of every British serving officer. The Ministry of Defence has been engaged at every stage in the elaboration of the statute and in the drafting of the Bill. It is content that the Bill gives full protection to our armed services.
	I remind the Opposition that the former head of the Army legal services, Major General Tony Rogers, said:
	"When carrying out attacks on military objectives, we are already under a treaty obligation not to cause disproportionate incidental loss and damage to the civilian population."
	He added:
	"The Geneva Conventions have been put to the test recently. I am not aware we had any problems complying with our treaty obligations during the Gulf War or 1991 or the Kosovo war of 1999."
	The same point has been made by others, and I shall give an example. The hon. Member for Aldershot wanted to quote American examples. If he were to read the Harvard International Law Journal, he would find that Jocknick and Normand have written:
	"One claim has survived the twisted aftermath of the Gulf War intact--namely that the coalition used modern military techniques to comply with the fundamental legal requirements to distinguish between civilians and combatants more effectively than any belligerent in any past war."
	General Colin Powell commented that the decisions were impacted on by legal considerations at every level and that the law of war proved invaluable in the decision-making process.
	Judge Richard Goldstone, the former prosecutor of the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, commented "I have no doubts that the fears are without justification at all. Firstly, the war crimes defined in the Rome statute are really the most serious war crimes internationally committed." We should remember that. We are talking about crimes of genocide--crimes against humanity. These are megacrimes. The judge added "In the second place, the ICC will not have jurisdiction at all over a British citizen if the British military and civil courts investigate in good faith any allegations made."
	Ten current and former presidents of the United States Society of International Law, replying precisely to the letter that the hon. Member for Aldershot read out and prayed in aid, said:
	"Seldom in the course of public discussion of a great international issue have so many great and good former officials been so misinformed about fundamental principles of international law. Without some international agreement to the contrary, the American airman shot down, for example, while carrying out a bombing mission over foreign territory will under customary international law be subject to territorial jurisdiction of a target state. This is not a newly minted principle of customary international law."
	Similarly, what we are doing is not new and is not a newly minted principle. We are continuing the proud and honourable role that the United Kingdom has played in the development and enforcement of international humanitarian law. We have a history and a tradition that go back to the 17th century of drawing up rules of engagement, and we have been proud to be part of that process.
	Britain has played a full part in the development of the laws of war. It was Conservative Governments who passed the relevant legislation in 1957 and 1995 that enabled the ratification of the Geneva conventions and the additional protocols.
	There have been some interesting exchanges during this debate. The more the shadow Foreign Secretary was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the more his arguments were exposed. He does not simply have reservations about the details of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman demonstrated that the Conservatives oppose the Bill in principle and that their amendments are stalking horses for blocking it and ensuring that it does not take its place on the statute book. I recommend that we reject the new clause.

Francis Maude: This has been a useful debate because it has established beyond any doubt the fact that the Foreign Secretary is simply not able to give a binding assurance to our armed forces that they will be secure against vexatious prosecutions conducted under the Bill. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) has made it clear that that possibility cannot be excluded under the Bill in its current form. Frankly, we heard some thoroughly bogus arguments from Government Members. The case was made that, somehow, article 124 does not apply to war crimes; it permits article 8 on war crimes not to be applied to a country's armed forces, which is why the French exercised their opt-out.
	British armed forces are in a special position because they, along with the French and the Americans, are consistently deployed abroad. The Americans have made their decision; President Clinton--not President Bush--said that he would not ask the Senate to ratify the treaty, nor would he recommend that his successor did so. Socialist Prime Minister Jospin--
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Question put and negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put,That the Bill be now read the Third time.--[Mr. Pearson.]
	The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 73.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

PETITION
	 — 
	TransBus plc

Lawrie Quinn: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Jean May Taylor and Graham Collins, my constituents, and of more than 3,500 local people from Scarborough who wish to see the devastating announcement by TransBus plc concerning the closure of the Plaxton bus and coach factory at Eastfield in my constituency reconsidered by the company, and to have the support of this House to achieve that aim.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Jean May Taylor and Graham Collins constituents of Scarborough and Whitby constituency and North Yorkshire sheweth
	That TransBus plc has announced the proposed closure of the Plaxton bus and coach factory, Eastfield on Thursday 3rd May 2001, thereby denying its 700 employees future employment and consequential loss of employment opportunities in Scarborough and North Yorkshire with associated companies and the potential collapse of the local economy.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge TransBus plc to reconsider the proposed closure of their Eastfield factory after assessment of future market opportunities in the United Kingdom and their responsibilities to employees, local communities and the Scarborough economy; note the establishment of the Eastfield rapid reaction taskforce to secure a satisfactory sustainable solution for job opportunities in the Scarborough area; and support the representations by the Honourable Member for Scarborough and Whitby to Her Majesty's Government for the enhancement of economic prospects for Scarborough and Whitby by consideration of special assisted area status, progress on upgrading of the A64 transport corridor and the fullest support for the Eastfield rapid reaction taskforce.
	I pray that the House will support this petition.
	To lie upon the Table.

Flood Defence

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Dowd.]

Mark Todd: We unexpectedly have longer to debate the important subject of flood defence than we anticipated. I hope that we will not take up the entire time until 7.30 pm, but the issue is critical for residents of south Derbyshire, and I am glad to be able to raise it in this Parliament.
	In early November last year, many households in my constituency suffered the terrible experience of flooding. In the worst hit village of Hatton, 142 properties were flooded, and many people experienced the misery of sewage flowing back into their homes. Other villages along the Trent and Dove, including Willington, Barrow on Trent, Scropton, Hilton and Shardlow experienced severe disruption and the flooding of some properties. Local land drainage failures caused flooding in other villages such as Stanton.
	In most cases, defences that were the responsibility of the Environment Agency were overtopped, but other drainage problems often contributed to the damage. Emergency services responded well, but were stretched to the limit. Since the floods, repairs and restoration have been the main preoccupation of many lives. Some people fully reoccupied their homes only very recently.
	The various public agencies that are responsible in the area--the Environment Agency, parish, district and county councils and the sewerage operator, Severn Trent--tried first to understand what happened and secondly to explain events. They are now starting to produce solutions that may prevent repetition in some areas. Some remedies have been agreed--for example, the repair and slight raising of the defences on the Foston brook. In other cases, however, there is far more to do.
	Considerable scrutiny of events has occurred nationally. That is hardly surprising in view of the scale of the disaster. The Environment Agency produced its report, entitled "Lessons Learned", and the National Audit Office has published a report on inland flood defence. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Select Committee on Agriculture have also produced relevant reports. I want to draw out some key points that were made in several reports and reflect the south Derbyshire experience.
	First, I shall quote from "Lessons Learned", which states:
	"The attribution of responsibility for the management of water courses posing a significant flood risk needs to be reassessed."
	It is not clear in my area why some water courses are the responsibility of the Environment Agency and others are not, when their interdependence as drainage mechanisms is clear.
	When the Agriculture Committee took evidence from the Environment Agency, reference was made to the accident of the agency being responsible for some water courses while others were left in the hands of riparian owners. One Environment Agency representative said that that often related to the membership of flood defence committees and the influence that certain landowners had exerted in the past, the results of which had been passed on to the agency. There is no logic to the assignation of responsibility for water courses.
	Secondly, when water courses are the specific responsibility of riparian owners, their performance is supposed to be monitored and enforced by local authorities. Many local authorities choose not to carry out that function or believe that they cannot. In reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 2 May, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food listed seven councils that were not prepared to inspect flood defences, 12 that had failed to respond to Environment Agency inquiries and 115 that were unable to carry out inspections or did not believe that they had the resources to do the job. That renders a holistic grasp of flood defence in many areas impossible.
	Scrutiny of the list of councils that the Minister provided to me reveals that many of them cover areas that were severely afflicted by the floods last October and November. Although, fortunately, none of the councils in my area were included on the list, I think that many hon. Members would be surprised to discover the attitude displayed by their local authorities to such a critical issue. It is also true that, relying on the activity of individual local authorities causes grave inconsistencies both in the standard of inspection that is achieved, when there are inspections, and in the precise measures that are used to identify shortcomings.
	There are solutions to that problem. In its "Lessons Learned" report, the Environment Agency sets out quite clearly a view that I strongly endorse: the Environment Agency should have either the power to inspect or the power to compel others to inspect. Clearly that would require either additional resources for the Environment Agency to perform the role itself or additional powers for it to force unwilling local authorities to act. That however brings us to the third issue, which concerns the resources applied to doing the job.
	It is clear that the resources available both to the Environment Agency and to local authorities are inadequate. One can certainly draw that lesson from the responses of local authorities, especially as many of the 115 local authorities that I mentioned said that they would have liked to fulfil that responsibility but felt that they did not have sufficient resources to do so.
	Research done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food itself has shown that additional funding is required for flood defence, which is a point that is reiterated in the "Lessons Learned" report. The National Audit Office report, which focused on the state of our flood defences, said that asset surveys completed up to last autumn showed that, as regards standards of preparedness to meet their objective, 40 per cent. of flood defence assets fall into the categories of fair, poor or very poor.
	Fourthly, some expenditure is urgently required. We should review the decision-making process and the criteria used in deciding on flood defence construction. In my area, parts of the village of Hatton have defences intended to protect for only one in 10 years. The defences of the rest of the village, with one small exception, were intended to protect for one in 100 years. As the Environment Agency points out in its "Lessons Learned" report, we should support consistent standards across individual communities.
	It would be difficult for me to defend to the citizens of Hatton the proposition that we expect lower maintenance levels and less flood protection in one area of Hatton than in another area that is just the other side of a railway track that forms the major defence for the rest of the village. That is not a defensible position, and I am glad that the Environment Agency is highlighting it as one of the issues that must be addressed in deciding on future defences.
	We should review the criteria on which investment decisions are based. Sadly, not everyone in south Derbyshire was properly insured against flooding, so that some householders themselves have had to bear the cost of the damage. Nevertheless, currently, the costs that householders or, in most cases, their insurers have to bear are not those that are allowed for in the cost benefit analysis that is performed in justifying individual flood defence projects. Value added tax, which is ignored, is one obvious exception. However, most insurers have a replace-as-new policy, which is usually what householders prefer to trying to find a second-hand item that precisely matches the items lost in the flood. Those essentially modern-day views of the actual cost of flooding are not taken into account in the cost benefit analyses that are used to justify defences.
	In the particular case of Hatton, this is likely to mean that upgrading the defences in the area beyond the railway line will be hard to justify against the criteria. The Environment Agency has carried out an initial analysis and there is more work to be done, so it is important not to prejudge that, but it has already indicated to me the difficulties of defending this particular group of houses and meeting the criteria that have been set down.
	Fifthly, the Government have published welcome draft revisions of PPG25 to tighten control on flood plain development. They have also decided to consult on my proposal--inserted in the report by the Select Committee on Agriculture--that the Environment Agency has the right to call in for public inquiry applications with which it disagrees.
	Currently, a local authority can choose to ignore the advice of the Environment Agency when it has reservations about construction on a flood plain. In my view, that power has led to foolish and inappropriate developments in the past, which in some cases have placed the residents of those developments at risk and in others have inconvenienced other people by occupying part of a flood plain that was there for a purpose--to hold water when we faced flood conditions. Clearly developments of that kind place at risk property, and in extreme cases, lives. The Environment Agency should have the power to insist on a public inquiry to examine an application on which it dissents.
	Sixthly, we must integrate the sewage operators in our flood defence framework. I shall again quote some local examples. It is clear that planning decisions often make optimistic assumptions about local domestic surface water drainage or systems that have decayed through local adaptation over time. What tends to happen is that when a new housing estate is constructed, the developer agrees that domestic surface water drainage will not go into the main sewage system, but instead go into soak-aways. Over time, people make adaptations to their properties and end up with the surface water drainage going into the foul water system and overloading it. Sometimes the tests that are carried out to work out whether a soak-away will actually work in an area where the water table is very high--as it is in the village of Hatton--or in a low-lying area, make assumptions that are unsound.
	The first priority must be to make sure that that is clearly understood, because the linkage with the foul water system and then with the effectiveness of other surface water systems is critical. In some cases foul water systems critically depend, at overflow, on the effectiveness of surface water systems; and if the foul water system is supposed to overflow into a surface water system at times of crisis and is already over the top, then predictably, the foul water system will swiftly back up into the houses. That is what happened in Hatton, and villagers have rightly asked a lot of questions about the design of the sewage system and its ability to deal with reasonably predictable demand; and about the failure of Severn Trent Water to spot warning signals in respect of the performance of the sewage system in the past when residents regularly complained about the systems backing up or flooding into garden areas.
	Regrettably, at times of very high rainfall and flooding across the fields from Foston brook breach, that led to immense crisis in the village, with many people facing the most unpleasant experiences. Flooding is bad enough, but finding foul water coming back into one's house is a deeply depressing and distressing experience.
	As I have said, if the evidence of Hatton is typical, the links between the various elements of the system are not always properly understood. In Hatton, it was only after the event that Severn Trent, the Environment Agency and the local authority looked at the relationship between the various parts of the system and realised that some of the interdependence did not function properly. Clearly the sewage operators must be part of any framework of future planning.
	We must also be innovative. It is a truism that defences built in one place simply direct water elsewhere. Water does not disappear when flood defences are constructed: it is displaced and flows to another location. Defences built in one place are often to the disadvantage of people somewhere else, and more strategic planning is required. I welcome the catchment planning that is being carried out in five pilot projects, as described in a parliamentary answer that I received last week. I am sad that those five areas will not benefit my constituency, but the principle of viewing flooding strategically is sound. I hope that the pilot studies prove successful and, if so, are rapidly emulated elsewhere.
	We should, however, examine carefully the role of soft defences against flooding and how we can work with riparian farmers to ensure compatible land use, allowing flood dispersal and water storage in periods of heavy rain. It is clear that intensive agriculture, including density of livestock and crop choices, has substantial implications for the ability of a field system near a water course to absorb significant amounts of water when flooding takes place. Farmers in that position should be given a substantial incentive to cultivate their land, and practise animal husbandry, in ways that will allow flood dispersal on land that is less vulnerable than populated areas. That is an important function for which farmers could receive financial recognition. At a time when we are considering how to reconfigure agriculture and learn some of the lessons of the past few years, farmers could be invited to play a critical role in such circumstances. That role could be readily defended to the rest of the community as an appropriate subsidy and support for the agriculture sector.
	Most experts predict that extreme weather conditions will become more common, so low-lying areas such as much of south Derbyshire require a far higher priority to be given to both strategy and the local delivery of flood defence and management.
	I hope that the Government re-elected in four weeks' time will have the chance to give further thought to what I have said this evening and to the various reports produced in the past few weeks, in order to develop appropriate responses that will give comfort to the citizens of south Derbyshire who suffered so grievously. They are merely representative of many other people around the country who also look for much higher priority and greater strategic thought to be given to this critical subject which, for too long, has bumbled along in the background of Government thinking. It has been subject to the normal compromises of British thought, which involve the division of responsibilities among a variety of agencies, and men and women of goodwill co-operating together on common goals. Sadly, in the modern world, that, increasingly, is not a workable framework for dealing with a critical subject of strategic importance, which is what flood defence and flood management have become.

Elliot Morley: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and on his detailed presentation of his case. He covered the villages that he represents--Hatton, Scropton, Willington, Barrow on Trent, Swarkstone, Shardlow, Ambaston and Egginton--and I should like to express my sympathy for the difficulties experienced by those of his constituents who have been affected by floods. I understand how distressing floods can be, and that the problem is even worse when foul water is involved.
	One of the problems identified by my hon. Friend was that the floods experienced by his constituents happened because of a combination of factors. It is certainly true that there was over-topping of the river defences, but in addition the volume of water caused sewers to back up. The amount of surface water also posed difficulties.
	I understand the points made by my hon. Friend that arise from the "Lessons Learned" report on the recent flooding. Those matters include determining where responsibility for water courses lies, the roles of riparian owners and of their internal drainage boards, main and non-main river designations, and the high-level targets that I have set for the Environment Agency and local authorities.
	I share my hon. Friend's concern that many authorities seem not to have made much progress, and I shall touch on that in a moment, but I want to deal first with the problem of flooding in Hatton. He was right to say that it was caused by the River Dove rising so high that the Hatton sewage pumping station was flooded. As a result, the sewage system was flooded and the Foston flood defence bank was breached. Floodwater entered the sewage system through the combined foul and highway sewers.
	Since the flooding, Severn Trent Water has worked to improve and protect the sewage network in and around Hatton. I understand that the company has effectively isolated the sewage system from the River Dove, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that. That should prevent the pumping station from being flooded if the river breaches its banks again.
	The company has also installed additional capacity at the pumping station to enable overflows to be pumped to a ditch. It has undertaken maintenance work on sewers in the area, which has included a closed-circuit television survey, cleaning work to improve the flow, and some repairs to prevent the infiltration of ground water into the sewers. An extensive study of the sewage systems in Hatton and the surrounding villages has begun, and will include some computer modelling. One-to-one interviews with householders have been carried out, and some householders have had non-return valves fitted to their drainage systems to prevent sewage back-flow problems.
	Severn Trent Water has also maintained close liaison with developers in the area to ensure that any new buildings do not have an adverse effect on the existing sewage system, or on existing residents. It deserves some credit for adopting a comprehensive approach to the problem in response to the concerns by my hon. Friend.
	My hon. Friend raised a range of other matters, and I shall try to deal with them. I recognise that the arrangements for flood and coastal defence are complex, but he was a member of the Select Committee that looked into the matter, and so knows the arrangements better than most.
	The Environment Agency has a general supervisory duty for flood defence, but local authorities and internal drainage boards also have a role to play. Flooding from sewers is the responsibility of the local water and sewage company, whereas surface water is usually the responsibility of the relevant highways authority.
	Although a number of agencies are involved, I do not believe that an efficient and co-ordinated response is impossible. That is what we are trying to put in place by setting the high-level targets after the winter floods. We have asked all operating authorities to produce publicly available policy statements setting out their approach to flood and coastal defence and showing the water courses for which they are responsible. Those authorities must also say how they would manage flood risks on those water courses. Those statements will help to illuminate local approaches and give local communities the information by which they can judge the performance of these bodies.
	I recognise that this does not apply to the bodies responsible for sewers and surface waters. The Environment Agency has discussed with me the idea of using its Floodline service, which was very successful in the recent floods--it gave people a point of contact as well as providing information and updates--as a one-stop approach for all those who suffer flooding, from wherever it may be. That includes problems with surface water and drains. This is probably a longer-term aspiration. It is important first to establish local partnerships and secure local agreement between the agency and the other bodies involved, which will be assisted through the development of an effective emergency plan in the light of last autumn's experiences.
	I am also prepared to consider the institutional arrangements for flood and coastal defence more generally in the light of the findings of the review of funding arrangements and the financial management and policy review of the Environment Agency. Both reviews are currently under way and will be reporting their findings this year. That will be an opportunity for considering a range of issues, including the funding and structural mechanisms, relating to the way in which we carry out flood and coastal defence in this country.
	My hon. Friend referred to the willingness of local authorities to carry out inspections of flood defences and critical ordinary water courses. He referred to his parliamentary question and the answer that I gave him. The long list of local authorities that had not, for various reasons, responded in the kind of detail that we expected, was very disappointing.
	There is an associated high-level target that authorities should identify flood defences for which they are responsible. It is possible that some of the authorities on the list do not have any such responsibilities. However, these inspections are required under our high-level targets and the approach was agreed at a meeting with senior members of the Local Government Association. There is a related high-level target for the Environment Agency to report on flood defence inspections and its assessment of flood risk. That is expected shortly. I have asked the agency's chairman to ensure that the report provides a full analysis of the inspection problems. That includes an analysis of the response that we have had from local authorities so far. I want to assure my hon. Friend that we take this matter seriously.
	My hon. Friend touched generally on the economic appraisal. He knows how that operates in relation to the methodology that we use in determining priority scores for where the resources should go for flood defence schemes. We cannot get away from the fact that there will always be more demand for spending on flood and coastal defence than can be provided in any one year. In that respect, it is right and proper to have a mechanism that identifies priority. Therefore, those with the most need get the schemes put in place as quickly as possible.

Mark Todd: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. However, he will need to think about two issues--the scale of the total pot available for carrying out the schemes, as that will obviously influence the number of priority schemes that are available, and the precise mechanism that is used to determine the cost and benefit of each scheme, which I referred to in my speech.

Elliot Morley: I accept those points. We are reviewing the scoring system and have just started a formal consultation process on the way in which the system works. We will, of course, reflect carefully on the comments that we receive from people who respond to the consultation.
	Funding is, in many ways, the crux of the issue, as it determines what can be provided. I am glad to say that the Government have increased funding for flood and coastal defence as part of the 2000 comprehensive spending review. Following the devastating floods of last autumn, which in many cases were the worst for more than 100 years, we made available an additional £51 million over the next four years. That was announced last November. That money was mainly to accelerate river defence schemes and to allow catchment flood management plans to proceed. I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's welcome for that.
	We have also put together a package of £11.6 million to fund the Environment Agency's exceptional costs in responding to last year's floods and carrying out emergency repairs. That sum is available in the current financial year, so that the agency can deal with those matters. In total, more than £400 million a year is being spent on flood and coastal defence in England. That sum is not far away from the proposal for the appropriate sum made in the independent assessment commissioned by the Ministry.

Mark Todd: I was about to ask about the relationship with the survey carried out by MAFF. Although there is obviously some relationship, the amount set aside is substantially less than the amount identified in that survey. Furthermore, many of the local authorities which replied so unfavourably--as my hon. Friend and I agree--referred to resource problems in carrying out their responsibility. Finally, the survey on the state of our current defences showed--as I said--that 40 per cent. of those defences fall into the "fair or below" category. That demonstrates a huge shortfall merely in the routine maintenance of our existing defences.

Elliot Morley: Yes, my hon. Friend is right again, although many of the levies raised by the regional flood defence committees, which are responsible for the day-to-day management and upkeep of flood defences, were specifically for this financial year so that some of those maintenance issues could be addressed.
	There is considerable regional disparity. Some regions are extremely good but in others, such as Yorkshire, a high percentage of defences are classified as "fair" or "poor". However, I do not want to give the impression that to classify a defence as "fair" means that it is in immediate risk of falling down--that is not the case. Furthermore, only a small number of defences are classified as "poor". Nevertheless, we need to deal with those issues.
	I accept that we need to consider whether we are committing enough resources for flood and coastal defence overall. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a study is under way to examine whether there should be even further increases in investment in flood and coastal defence. That study is linked to research that we have commissioned into the possible effects of climate change.
	If there is a change in weather patterns due to climate change, with more extremes of weather of the kind that we experienced during the past winter, we must plan ahead for that. That means committing additional resources and examining what they should be, as well as considering the implications of the possible impact of changed weather patterns. That is being done.
	We are also reviewing the funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence--the mechanisms, rather than the global sums. That report is due to be published in September. I can thus reassure my hon. Friend that a great deal of work is being done on flood defence.
	We are holding this debate on one of the warmest days of the year thus far; the sun is shining so perhaps this is not the kind of day on which people think about storms, floods and coasts, but we have to keep planning for them. I assure my hon. Friend that the issue is constantly in the back of my mind. At MAFF, we constantly think ahead about a long-term strategic approach, such as that recommended by the Select Committee. Of course, when I see the sun shining at present, all I can think of is that the foot and mouth virus is clearing up, so that cheers me up no end.
	My hon. Friend mentioned soft defence. He might be interested to know that, as part of the response to the autumn floods, I have approved the appointment of an independent expert engineer from the Institution of Civil Engineers. His remit is to consider innovative ideas that might inform the way that we approach flood defence schemes. I met the committee concerned and made it very clear to its members that they should not feel restrained by current or traditional thinking in relation to hard engineering, and that they should embrace the idea of soft defence as part of sustainable flood and coastal defence schemes. Indeed, a combination of the two might be used. I am sure that the members of the committee do not feel restrained in their thinking.
	My hon. Friend made a powerful case on behalf of his constituents tonight. I understand their concern, and his concern, to see progress and to see the results of the investments that we are making and the reviews that we are conducting in relation to flood defence. I am pleased that work is being done in relation to the sewerage problem, which was one of the key factors in the flooding of the area. The reports will be published in the course of this year, and I am sure that there will be a continuing debate about the nature of our flood defence schemes and the appropriate level of commitment.
	As a Government, we recognise that we may be moving into a period of climate change. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said many times that the floods that we experience should be taken as a wake-up call to the dangers of global warming and climate change. I very much hope that President Bush heeds that wake-up call in relation to the need for a global approach to climate change.
	I can assure my hon. Friend that we recognise that there are implications for investment for the long term, and that we will make that investment for the long term, for the defence of his constituents and the people of this country.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock.